HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME

PO BOX 400 67 SCHOOL STREET, HILLSBORO, NH 03244 (603) 464-5561
For profit - Corporation 33 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
55/100
#39 of 73 in NH
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: August 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Hillsboro House Nursing Home has received a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #39 out of 73 facilities in New Hampshire, placing it in the bottom half, and #14 out of 21 in Hillsborough County, indicating that only one local option is better. The facility is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from 7 in 2024 to 2 in 2025, but it still faces challenges. Staffing is a major concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 39%, which is better than the state average but still suggests instability. Additionally, the facility has incurred $97,730 in fines, which is troubling and indicates serious compliance issues, and there have been specific incidents like the failure to implement proper infection control guidelines and ensure that residents have appropriate assessments for self-administration of medications. Overall, while there are strengths in some quality measures, the nursing home has notable weaknesses that families should consider.

Trust Score
C
55/100
In New Hampshire
#39/73
Bottom 47%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near New Hampshire's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$97,730 in fines. Higher than 82% of New Hampshire facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
⚠ Watch
15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (39%)

    9 points below New Hampshire average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near New Hampshire average (3.0)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near New Hampshire avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $97,730

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record

Aug 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed follow currently accepted professional principles for labeling and/or storing drugs and biologicals in 1 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed follow currently accepted professional principles for labeling and/or storing drugs and biologicals in 1 of 1 medication rooms and 1 of 1 medication carts observed. (Resident identifiers are #7 and #2.)Findings include:Observation on 8/5/25 at approximately 8:15 a.m. of the facility medication cart revealed two unlabeled medication cups in the top draw. One medication cup had medications crushed in pudding and the other medication cup had whole pills in it. Interview on 8/5/25 at approximately 8:15 a.m. with Staff A (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed the medication cup with whole pills in it was Resident #7's morning medications and the medication cup with crushed pills in it was Resident #2's morning medications. Further interview confirmed that neither medication cup was labeled with a resident identifier or what it contained.Observation on 8/5/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. of the facility medication room refrigerator revealed an opened and undated vial of Tuberculin solution. Interview on 8/5/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above findings.Review on 8/6/25 of the facility policy titled, Labeling and Dating of Multi-Dose Vials in Long-Term Care, Undated revealed: . 1. Labeling Upon First Use, Upon first access (puncture) of a multi-dose vial, staff must immediately label the vial with: Date opened, Discard date . Review on 8/6/25 of the manufacturer's' instructions for Tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative, Tubersol, undated, revealed . A vial of Tubersol which has been entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded . Review on 8/6/25 of the facility policy titled, Preparation of Medications in Long-Term Care, Revision Date 2008 revealed: . 4. One Resident at a Time Rule, Only prepare medications for one resident at a time to prevent cross-contamination and medication errors.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for infection control during medication administration. (Resident id...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for infection control during medication administration. (Resident identifiers are #12, #20, #25 and #4.)Findings include:Observation on 8/5/25 at from approximately 8:45 a.m. until 9:05 a.m. with Staff A (Licensed Practical Nurse) during medication administration revealed the following: At approximately 8:45 a.m., Staff A prepared and administered medications to Resident #12. Staff A did not perform hand hygiene before or after Resident #12's medication administration. At approximately 8:50 a.m., Staff A prepared and administered medications to Resident #20. Staff A did not perform hand hygiene before or after Resident #20's medication administration. Immediately following, Staff A assisted Resident #25 with positioning in his/her wheelchair. Staff A did not perform hand hygiene before or after assisting Resident #25 with positioning in his/her wheelchair. At approximately 8:55 a.m., Staff A took Resident #4's breakfast tray from the kitchen to his/her room and assisted Resident #4 with their meal set up and bed positioning. Staff A did not perform hand hygiene before or after setting up Resident #4's breakfast tray and bed positioning. At approximately 8:55 a.m., Staff A prepared and administered medications to Resident #25. Staff A did not perform hand hygiene before or after Resident #25's medication administration. Interview on 8/5/25 at approximately 9:10 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above findings. Review on 8/6/25 of the facility policy titled, Infection Control During Medication Administration, Revision Date 2020, revealed . 1. A. When to Perform Hand Hygiene: Before preparing or administering any medication . Before accessing a medication cart or entering a resident's room, After direct contact with the resident, their immediate environment, . Between residents .
Sept 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was assessed and an informed consent was obtained for the use of full-length be...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was assessed and an informed consent was obtained for the use of full-length bed rails for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for restraints in a final sample of 13 residents (Resident Identifier #18). Findings include: Observation on 9/4/24 at approximately 10:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., 1:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. revealed that Resident #18 was in bed with full-length bed rails up on the right and left side of the bed. Review on 9/4/24 of Resident #18's medical record revealed that there was no bed rail assessment and informed consent for the full-length bed rails. Review on 9/4/24 of the facility's policy titled, Bed Rail Consent Form, with no date, revealed that the facility will periodically and annually review and re-evaluate the resident's use of the bed rails. Interview on 9/4/24 at approximately 3:00 p.m. with Staff A (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above findings.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional pri...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 of 1 medication carts observed and 1 of 4 residents reviewed for choices (Resident Identifier #19). Findings include: Observation on 9/4/24 at approximately 8:20 a.m with Staff B (Registered Nurse) of the facility's medication cart revealed an open Lantus (insulin) vial with no resident identifier with an open date of 8/5/24 and discard date of 9/2/24. Review on 9/4/24 of Lantus manufacturer instructions revealed .Store in-use (opened) LANTUS vials .at room temperature .for up to 28 days . Resident #19 Observation on 9/4/24 at approximately 8:45 a.m. revealed a Refresh eye drops (lubricant eye drops) at Resident #19's bedside table. Interview on 9/4/24 at approximately 8:45 a.m. with Resident #19 confirmed the above observation. Resident #19 stated that the eye drops were stored at bedside. Review on 9/5/24 of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage Procedure, with no date, revealed .Medications will be stored in a locked drawer in the patient's room . Interview on 9/05/24 at 1:30 p.m. with Staff A (Director Of Nursing) confirmed above facility policy.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility assessment determined the amount of time required to fulfill the role of the designated Inf...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility assessment determined the amount of time required to fulfill the role of the designated Infection Preventionist (IP). Findings include: Review on 9/5/24 of the facility's facility assessment with a review date of 6/2024 revealed no determination for the amount of time required to fulfill the role of the IP. Interview on 9/5/24 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Staff A (Director of Nursing) revealed that he/she was the designated IP at the facility. Staff A stated that he/she spends 1 hour a week dedicated to the facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP).
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to determine clinical appropriateness of self-administration of medications for 2 of 4 residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to determine clinical appropriateness of self-administration of medications for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for choices in a final sample of 13 residents (Resident Identifiers are #19 and #22). Findings include: Resident #19 Observation on 9/5/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. in Resident #19's room revealed 5 pills in a small coaster on Resident #19's tray table. Interview on 9/5/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Resident #19 revealed that the pills were his/her morning medications and that the nurse leaves the pills for him/her to take everyday. Resident #19 stated that this is done at his/her request to take the medications at his/her own pace. Review on 9/5/24 of Resident #19's medical record revealed that there was no self-administer of medication assessment or physician's order to self-administer medications. Resident #22 Observation on 9/4/24 at approximately 8:45 a.m. with Staff B (Registered Nurse (RN)) during medication administration revealed that Staff B left a cup of 7 pills that were: 1 Aspirin 81 milligrams (mg) EC (enteracoted), 2 garlic (dietary supplement) 1000 mg, 1 Lutein (eye vitamin) capsule 20 mg, 1 multivitamin with minerals, 1 vitamin D 1000 units, 1 jentadueto (anti-diabetic medication) 2.5mg/500mg, and 1 osteobilflex (joint supplement). Interview on 9/4/24 at approximately 8:45 a.m. with Staff B confirmed the above findings. Staff B stated that Resident #22 was cognitive enough to take medications by themselves. Obsrevation on 9/5/24 at 8:30 a.m. in Resident #22's room revealed a medicine cup of 3 pills. Interview on 9/5/23 at approximately 8:30 a.m with Resident #22 confirmed the above findings. Resident #22 stated that the pills were his/her medications and that the nurse left it for him/her to take on their own. Review on 9/5/24 of Resident #22's medical record revealed that there were no physician's order to self-administer medications and there was no self-administration assessment. Interview on 9/5/24 at 8:50 a.m. with Staff B confirmed the above findings. Interview on 9/5/24 at approximately 1:45 p.m. with Staff A (Director of Nursing) confirmed that Resident #19 and #22 were not assessed for self-administration of medications. Staff A was unable to provide a policy for self-administration of medications.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the food service director met minimum qualifications. Findings include: Interview on 9/5/24 at approximately 11:30 a.m. with St...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the food service director met minimum qualifications. Findings include: Interview on 9/5/24 at approximately 11:30 a.m. with Staff C (Administrator) revealed that the dietician is part-time and that Staff C was the food service director. Staff C confirmed that he/she had been the food service director for years and had not completed a course of study in food safety and management.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dishes were saniti...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dishes were sanitized according to manufacturer's instruction for food services safety in the main kitchen. Findings include: Review on 9/4/24 of the facility's 2024 dishwasher temperature logs from August to September revealed that the facility documented one temperature per day. The temperatures ranged between 160 to 176 degrees Fahrenheit. The log did not indicate what an acceptable range would be or if the temperature was taken during wash or rinse cycle. Interview on 9/4/24 at approximately 10:45 a.m. with Staff E (Lead Cook) revealed that the above log temperatures were for wash cycle only. Staff E did not know the acceptable temperatures for wash and rinse cycle. Observation on 9/5/24 at approximately 12:00 p.m. with Staff F (Dietary Aide) of a dishwasher cycle revealed a wash temperature of 150 degrees Fahrenheit and rinse temperature of 174 degrees Fahrenheit. Review on 9/5/24 of manufacturer's instruction label for [NAME] LXe revealed minimum ranges for temperatures were 150 degrees Fahrenheit for wash and 180 degrees Fahrenheit for rinse.
CONCERN (F)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive infection control guideline for facility water management that had the potenti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive infection control guideline for facility water management that had the potential to effect the facility census of 26 residents who resided at the facility. Findings include: Review on 9/5/24 of the Facility Water Management Program with a revised date of 1/2024 revealed strategies for water management to be annual testing for legionella and weekly flushing of vacant rooms. Further review revealed no description of water flow, schematic, or map of plumbing or identified areas of concern available. Interview on 9/5/24 at approximately 11:00 a.m. with Staff A (Infection Preventionist) revealed he/she was unable to answer questions regarding water management or legionella testing. Interview on 9/5/24 at approximately 1:30 p.m. with Staff G (Administrator Assistant) revealed no logs for flushes or legionella test results available.
Aug 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered or provided ed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered or provided education on the risks and benefits of the Pneumococcal vaccination for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Pneumococcal vaccination (Resident Identifier is #11). Findings include: Review on 8/15/23 of Resident #11's medical record revealed they had admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #11's medical record revealed that the Pneumococcal vaccination was documented as refused on the immunization and screening record. There was no evidence in Resident #11 medical record that they had received education about the Pneumococcal vaccination. Interview on 8/16/23 at approximately 2:43 p.m. with Staff A (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above finding.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were provided with a private space for a resident group to meet on a regular basis for a facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were provided with a private space for a resident group to meet on a regular basis for a facility census of 25 residents (Resident identifiers are #17, #20, #21, and #25). Findings include: Review on 8/16/23 of the 3 previous months of Resident Council meeting minutes revealed the following: May 2023 - last month's follow up: planted herbs and flower seeds for the garden. New: Everyone is looking forward to watching the garden grow. Excited for live music later this month. June 2023 - last month's follow up: None. New: Everyone is looking forward to eating fresh vegetables from our garden. Looking forward to the town parade next month. July 2023 - last month follow up: parade got canceled due to rain. New: All are happy and enjoying the sun porch in the nice weather. Would like to have a monthly auction again. Interview on 8/16/23 at approximately 9:50 a.m. with Resident #17, Resident #20, Resident #21, and Resident #25 during a Resident Group Meeting revealed that they were not aware they were part of the Resident Council group and they were not aware the coffee hour was a Resident Council group meeting. The Resident Council group also were not aware that they could elect a President for the Resident Council. Interview on 8/17/23 at approximately 9:17 a.m. with Staff A (Director of Nursing) revealed that there is no set day for the Resident Council meeting. It is done at the morning coffee hour on days when people who want to come can attend. Review on 8/17/23 of facility policy titled Resident Council Policy revised on 9/22, revealed .The facility must take reasonable steps, with the approval of the resident council, to make residents and family members aware of upcoming meetings in a timely manner .The facility must provide a designated staff person who is approved by the resident council and the facility to provide assistance and respond to written requests from the resident council .
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0680 (Tag F0680)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional for a facility census of 25 residents. Findin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional for a facility census of 25 residents. Findings include: Review on 8/15/23 of the facility's key personal listing revealed that Staff A (Director of Nursing) was also listed as the Activities Director. Interview on 8/15/23 at approximately 1:16 p.m. with Staff C (Human Resources) could not provide proof of the required qualifications for the Activities Director position for Staff A. Interview on 8/16/23 at approximately 11:32 a.m. with Staff B (Administrator) revealed that Staff A does not meet the required qualifications to be the Activities Director. Review on 8/17/23 of the facility's Activities Director Responsibilities revealed . Supervising, conducting or designating responsibility for a needs assessments to ascertain physical, cognitive and emotional abilities. Determine individual interests and expectations regarding leisure time . Developing an activities program that is both sufficiently diverse and sensitive to our occupants' requirements .
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, it determined that the facility failed to have a Director of Nursing serving on a full time basis for a facility census of 25 residents. Findings include: Review ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it determined that the facility failed to have a Director of Nursing serving on a full time basis for a facility census of 25 residents. Findings include: Review on 8/15/23 of the facility's key personal listing revealed that Staff A (Director of Nursing) was also listed as the Infection Preventionist, Activities Director, Social Services, and Minimum Data Set Nurse. Interview on 8/16/23 at approximately 10:41 a.m. with Staff A confirmed the above findings. Staff A could not identify how many hours per week were dedicated to each of the above-mentioned roles. Review on 8/18/23 of the facility's Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Individual Daily Staffing [NAME] report for the time period of 6/16/23 - 6/30/23, revealed that there were no hours submitted for the following job codes: Director of Nursing, Director of Social Services, Registered Nurse with Administrative Duties or Therapeutic Recreational Specialist.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently during day-to-day operations. The facility also failed to review and update the assessment by the required individuals, as necessary, and at least annually. Finding includes: Review on 8/17/23 of the facility assessment, dated May 2023, revealed that the facility's assessment did not indicate the care required by the resident population considering the types of diseases, conditions, physical and cognitive disabilities, overall acuity, and other pertinent facts that are present within that population. Further review revealed that the medical director was not involved in completing the assessment. Interview on 8/17/23 at 11:14 a.m. with Staff B (Administrator) confirmed the facility's assessment was incomplete.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to submit to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) accurate direct care staffing information for Registere...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to submit to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) accurate direct care staffing information for Registered Nurse hours for 10 of 92 days reviewed for Fiscal Quarter 2 (1/1/23 - 3/31/23) and direct care staffing information for the period of 6/16/23 - 6/30/23. Findings include: Fiscal Quarter 2 (1/1/23 - 3/31/23) Review on 8/15/23 of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data [NAME] report for Fiscal Year Quarter 2, 2023 revealed that the facility failed to have Licensed Nursing coverage 24 hours a day on the following dates 1/17/23, 1/31/23, 2/7/23, 2/8/23, 2/9/23, 2/14/23, 2/21/23, 2/22/23, 2/28/23 and 3/7/23. Review on 8/16/23 of the facility's monthly staffing schedule for January 2023 through March 2023 revealed that there was licensed nursing coverage on the above dates. Interview on 8/17/23 at 9:42 a.m. with Staff C (Business Office Manager) stated that the administrative assistant inputs the hours manually for the facility every quarter for the PBJ submission. Staff B stated that they do not verify the actual hours worked with the hours submitted for PBJ. Review on 8/17/23 of the facility's PBJ Staffing [NAME] Report, Individual Daily Staffing Report for the time period of June 16, 2023 - June 30, 2023 revealed hours for the following job codes: Certified Nurse Aide, Licensed Practical/Vocational Nurse, Registered Nurse and Licensed Practical Nurse with administrative duties. Review also revealed that there were no hours submitted for the following job codes: Administrator, Director of Nursing, Medical Director, Physician Services, Therapeutic Services, Social Services, Mental Health Services, Pharmacy Services, and Dietary Services Interview on 8/17/23 at 9:45 a.m. with Staff B revealed that they only submit Licensed Nursing staff hours (Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, and Licensed Nursing Assistant) for PBJ. Staff B stated that they don't submit any hours for Direct Care Staff, Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Speech Therapist, Medical Director, Podiatrist, Nurse Practitioner, Activity Staff, Dietary Staff, Dietician, Director of Nursing, Director of Social Services, and Registered Nurse with administrative duties. Interview on 8/17/23 at 10:21 a.m. with Staff C (Administrator) confirmed the above findings.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 39% turnover. Below New Hampshire's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
  • • $97,730 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New Hampshire. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade C (55/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 55/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Hillsboro House's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within New Hampshire, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Hillsboro House Staffed?

CMS rates HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the New Hampshire average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Hillsboro House?

State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME during 2023 to 2025. These included: 10 with potential for harm and 5 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Hillsboro House?

HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 33 certified beds and approximately 27 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HILLSBORO, New Hampshire.

How Does Hillsboro House Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hillsboro House?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Hillsboro House Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Hillsboro House Stick Around?

HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME has a staff turnover rate of 39%, which is about average for New Hampshire nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Hillsboro House Ever Fined?

HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME has been fined $97,730 across 17 penalty actions. This is above the New Hampshire average of $34,056. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Hillsboro House on Any Federal Watch List?

HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.

HILLSBORO HOUSE NURSING HOME

PO BOX 400 67 SCHOOL STREET, HILLSBORO, NH 03244 | (603) 464-5561

C
Trust Grade (55/100)
3.0
CMS Rating
15
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 5-star quality

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025