COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE

100 WYMAN RD, KEENE, NH 03431 (603) 352-3235
Non profit - Corporation 20 Beds COVENANT LIVING Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#5 of 73 in NH
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Covenant Living of Keene has received an excellent Trust Grade of A, indicating that the facility is highly recommended and performs well compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #5 out of 73 facilities in New Hampshire, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among seven facilities in Cheshire County. However, the trend is worsening, as the number of reported issues increased from two in 2024 to three in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength, with a perfect rating of 5/5 stars and a turnover rate of 42%, which is below the state average, suggesting that staff are familiar with the residents' needs. On the downside, there were concerns noted during inspections, such as failing to monitor antibiotic use properly and not having a qualified professional oversee the activities program, which may impact the quality of care provided.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In New Hampshire
#5/73
Top 6%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
42% turnover. Near New Hampshire's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Hampshire facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 104 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of New Hampshire nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (42%)

    6 points below New Hampshire average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 42%

Near New Hampshire avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: COVENANT LIVING

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

Jun 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident had a monthly MRR (Medication Regimen Review) by a pharmacist for 1 of 5 residents reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident had a monthly MRR (Medication Regimen Review) by a pharmacist for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in a final sample of 8 residents. (Resident identifier is #5.) Findings include: Review on 6/25/25 of Resident #5's MRR's revealed he/she did not have a MRR for August 2024. Interview on 6/25/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff B (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above finding. Review on 6/25/25 of the facility policy titled, 8.1 Medication Regimen Review and Reporting, Dated 1/24 revealed: . 2. The consultant pharmacist reviews the medication regimen and medical chart of each resident at least monthly .
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their established antibiotic stewardship protocols for monitoring the appropriate antibiotic use (Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their established antibiotic stewardship protocols for monitoring the appropriate antibiotic use (Resident identifiers #13, #16, and #123). Findings include: Review on 6/24/25 of facility Antibiotic Stewardship Guidelines undated, revealed on page 5 revealed .Antibiotic Time Out Every time antibiotics are prescribed .3. Reassess within 48 hours and adjust Rx (treatment) if necessary or stop Rx (treatment) if indicated . Review on 6/24/25 of Resident #13's physician orders revealed an order dated 5/30/25 for Keflex 500mg 3 times a day for 5 days for wound infection. Review on 6/24/25 of Resident #16's physician orders revealed an order dated 5/30/25 for amoxicillin 875mg-potassium clavulante 125mg 2 times a day for 5 days for Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). Review on 6/24/25 of Resident #123's physician orders revealed an order dated 5/22/25 for Macrobid 100mg 2 times a day for 5 days for UTI. Review on 6/24/25 of Resident #13, #16, and #123's physician orders revealed no antibiotic time out completed for the orders listed above. Interview on 6/25/25 at approximately 9:45 a.m. with Staff A (Infection Preventionist) confirmed that Resident #13, #16, and #123 did not have completed antibiotic time outs.Staff A revealed that he/she did not report missed antibiotic timeouts or infections that do not meet criteria to the quality commitee.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to revise a care plan for 2 resident in a final sample of 8 residents (Resident identifiers are #5 and #13). Findings ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to revise a care plan for 2 resident in a final sample of 8 residents (Resident identifiers are #5 and #13). Findings include: Resident #13 Observation on 6/24/25 at approximately 8:30 a.m. of Resident #13 revealed that Resident #13 was up in his/her wheelchair and that there was a wrist splint on his/her dresser. Resident #13 was not wearing the wrist splint. Review on 6/25/25 of Resident #13's physician's orders revealed an order dated 4/18/25, Left wrist brace on in AM [morning] off in PM [evening]. Further review revealed that application of the splint was not addressed in the Resident #13's care plan. Interview on 6/25/25 at approximately 10:15 a.m. with Staff B (Director of Nursing) confirmed Resident #13 had an order for daily application of a left wrist splint and that the intervention should be reflected in the care plan. Staff B further confirmed that the intervention had not been added to the care plan for Resident #13. Review on 6/25/25 of the facility's policy Care Plan, Comprehensive Person-Centered Revision date March 2022 revealed .11. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change Resident #5 Review on 6/25/25 of Resident #5's medical record revealed he/she had a fall on 6/1/25. Review on 6/25/25 of Resident #5's care plan titled, At risk for falls/fall . revealed that the care plan was not updated with an intervention after Resident #6's fall. Interview on 6/25/25 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff B (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above findings. Review on 6/25/25 of the facility policy titled, Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, Revision Date March 2018 revealed: . Resident-Centered Approaches to Managing Falls and Fall Risk, . 5. If falling recurs despite initial interventions, staff will implement additional or different interventions, or indicate why the current approach remains relevant.
Jun 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was on antipsychotic medication had adequate indication of use that was necessary to trea...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was on antipsychotic medication had adequate indication of use that was necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in a final sample size of 12 residents (Resident Identifier is #17). Findings include: Review on 6/10/24 of Resident #17's active physician's orders revealed a physician's order for Quetiapine (antipsychotic) 37.5 milligrams (mg) by mouth twice a day with a start date of 4/30/24 and the indication of use was for the diagnoses of dementia with other behaviors. Review on 6/11/24 of Resident #17's provider note dated 5/1/24 revealed that the assessments and plans for dementia with other behavioral disturbances was the use of Donepezil (treats memory loss and confusion) 2.5 mg by mouth twice a day and Quetiapine 37.5 mg by mouth twice a day. Further review revealed no documentation of identified targeted behaviors and specific conditions related to dementia with other behaviors that indicated the use of the Quetiapine medication. Review on 6/11/24 of Resident #17's provider notes dated 5/7/24, 5/8/24, 5/15/24, and 5/22/24 revealed no documentation of identified targeted behaviors and specific conditions related to dementia with other behaviors that indicated the use of the Quetiapine medication. Review on 6/11/24 of Resident #17's active antipsychotic medication use care plan, dated 5/7/24, revealed no documentation of identified targeted behaviors and specific conditions related to dementia with other behaviors that indicated the use of the Quetiapine medication. Interview on 6/11/24 at approximately 12:30 p.m. with Staff D (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above findings. Review on 6/11/24 of the facility policy titled, Psychotropic Medication Use, dated July 2022, revealed: Consideration of the use of any psychotropic medication is based on comprehensive review of the resident. This include evaluation of the resident's signs and symptoms in order to identify underlying causes .Use of psychotropic medications may be considered appropriate in specific circumstances as specified in F758 . Review on 6/11/24 of the Quetiapine manufacturer's instruction from the FDA, retrieved from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/020639s045s046lbl.pdf, revealed: .INDICATION AND USAGE .Schizophrenia .Bipolar Disorder .Special Considerations in Treating Pediatric Schizophrenia and Bipolar I Disorder .WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS .Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death. SEROQUEL (Quetiapine Fumarate) is not approved for the treatment of patients with dementia-related psychosis (see Boxed Warning) .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately reflect resident use of restraints on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 2 out of 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately reflect resident use of restraints on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 2 out of 2 residents reviewed for restraints in a final sample of 12 residents (Resident Identifiers are #6 and #3). Findings include: Resident #6 Review on 6/11/24 of Resident #6's Quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 4/26/24 revealed under the Restraint section, Coded 2, indicating bedrail restraint used daily. Observation and interview on 6/10/24 at approximately 9:30 a.m. revealed Resident #6 sitting up in bed with a grab bar approximately 5 inches wide on the right side of the bed. Resident #6 stated that he/she utilizes the grab bar to get out of bed. Observation and interview on 6/11/24 at approximately 1:00 pm with Staff A (MDS Coordinator) confirmed the above findings. Staff A also confirmed that the grab bar was not a side rail and should not be coded as a restraint on the MDS. Resident #3 Review on 6/10/24 of Resident #3's electronic medical record revealed an MDS with an ARD of 4/19/24 under the Restraint section, Coded 2, indicating bedrail restraint used daily. Observation on 6/10/24 at 9:45 a.m. of Resident #3 revealed him/her lying in bed with grab bars approximately 5 inches wide on the both sides of the bed in the up position. Further observation revealed that Resident #3 was holding onto the side rails shifting himself/herself in bed. Interview on 6/11/24 at 1:00 p.m. with Staff A confirmed the above findings. Staff A also confirmed that the grab bar was not a side rail and should not be coded as a restraint on the MDS.
Apr 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, review of personnel files, and review of facility's policy, it was determined that the facility failed to en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, review of personnel files, and review of facility's policy, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that there were implemented measures to prevent abuse for 1 out of 7 employee personnel (Staff I) reviewed. Findings include: Review on 4/20/23 of Staff I's (Custodian) personnel file revealed that Staff I was hired on 1/18/23 and began working in the facility on 1/23/23. Further review of Staff I's personnel file revealed: 1. State of New Hampshire criminal background check was completed on 2/21/23. 2. Bureau of Elderly Adult Services ([NAME]) registry check was completed on 2/17/23. 3. Criminal background check was completed on 2/7/23. Interview on 4/20/23 at approximately 10:40 a.m. with Staff C (Human Resources Manager) confirmed that Staff I began employment before background checks were completed. Review on 4/20/23 of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program, revision date 10/15/22 revealed: .A. Screening of Staff . i. Pre-employment screening will be completed on all post-offer applicants, to include: a. Criminal Background Check b. Background Check . e. Misconduct Registry f. OIG [Office of Inspector General] registry .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

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 that residents on anti-psychotics and...

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 that residents on anti-psychotics and psychotropic medications were monitored for side effects, failed to obtain consent prior to utilizing anti-psychotic and psychotropic medications, and failed to ensure that as needed (PRN) orders for anti-psychotic and psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days except when attending physician or prescribing practitioner evaluates the resident for appropriateness of that medication, he/she should document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order for 1 out of 5 unnecessary medications reviewed (Resident identifier is #162). Findings include: Review on 4/20/23 of Resident #162's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed that Resident #162 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for hospice level of care. Review on 4/20/23 of Resident #162's March 2023 and April 2023 EMR revealed the following orders: 1. Risperdal (anti-psychotic) 1 milligram (mg), give 1 tablet oral twice daily, with a start date of 3/10/23, and discontinued date of 3/14/23. 2. Risperdal 1 mg give 1/2 tablet, oral every 6 hours PRN, with a start date of 3/11/23, with no indication of use and duration of the use and a discontinued date of 3/14/23. One (1) dose of this PRN Risperdal order was administered on 3/11/23. 3. Risperidone (anti-psychotic) 1mg/milliliter (ml) give 0.5 ml (0.5mg), oral every 6 hours PRN for agitation/hallucinations, with a start date of 3/13/23, and no indication of duration of use and was not limited to 14 days then discontinued on 4/16/23 (34 days from the start date of 3/13/23). This PRN Risperidone order was administered on 3/14/23, 3/15/23, 3/16/23, 3/17/23, 3/18/23, 3/19/23, 3/20/23, 3/21/23, 4/2/23, 4/4/23, 4/6/23, 4/10/23, 4/12/23, 4/13/23, and 4/15/23. 4. Risperidone 1 mg/ml give 0.5 ml (0.5mg), oral every 6 hours PRN for agitation/hallucinations, with a start date of 4/16/23, with no duration of use indicated. This Risperidone PRN was administered on 4/16/23. 5. Lorazepam (anti-anxiety) 2 mg/ml give 0.25 ml (0.5 mg), oral every 6 hours PRN for anxiety, with a start date of 3/27/23, and no duration of use indicated then discontinued on 4/16/23. This Lorazepam PRN order was administered on 3/28/23, 3/20/23, 3/31/23, 4/1/23, 4/2/23, 4/3/23, 4/5/23, 4/6/23, 4/7/23, 4/10/23, 4/11/23, and 4/12/23 6. Lorazepam 2mg/ml give 0.25 ml (0.5 mg), oral every 6 hours PRN for anxiety, with a start date of 4/16/23, and no duration of use indicated. Review on 4/20/23 of Resident #162's EMR revealed the following: 1. No documentation that the resident and/or the resident's representative consented to the use of the Lorazepam medication. No documentation that the facility provided any education to resident and/or resident's representative of side effects of the use of Lorazepam medication. 2. Resident #162's Psychotropic Medication Administration disclosure form (consent for medication use and disclosure of side effects) for Resident #162's Risperdal medication was signed by Resident #162's representative on 3/21/23, which was after the Risperdal or Risperidone start date as mentioned above. 3. No documentation of monitoring for any side effects for Lorazepam and Risperidone/Risperdal use. 4. No documentation of any Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) assessment done before the start of the Risperidone and/or Risperdal medication as mentioned above (3/10/23, 3/11/23, 3/13/23, and 4/16/23). 5. No documentation of evaluation and rationale by the facility provider and/or hospice provider of extending PRN Lorazepam and PRN Risperidone/Risperdal beyond the 14 days. Review on 4/20/23 of the facility policy titled, Antipsychotic Medication Use, revised date of 12/2016, revealed .The need to continue PRN orders for psychotropic medications beyond 14 days requires that the practitioner document the rationale for the extended order. The duration of the PRN order will be indicated in the order .PRN order for antipsychotic medication will not be renewed beyond 14 days unless the healthcare practitioner has evaluated the resident for appropriateness of that medication .Nursing staff shall monitor for and report any of the following side effects and adverse consequences of antipsychotic medications to the attending physician .
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 to ensure that expired medications were removed from the medication cart for 1 of 1 medication carts revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that expired medications were removed from the medication cart for 1 of 1 medication carts reviewed. Findings include: Observation on 4/18/23 at approximately 10:20 a.m. of the facility's medication cart revealed the following expired medication: Resident #154, Combivent Inhaler with a manufacturer's expiration date 2/23 Interview on 4/18/23 at approximately 10:20 a.m. with Staff A (Registered Nurse) confirmed that Resident #154 was administered the expired Combivent. Review on 4/19/23 of Resident #154 April 2023 Medication Administration Record revealed the following physician's order: Combivent Respimat 20 micrograms (mcg) actuation solution for inhalation mist inhaler PRN [as needed] every 6 hours as needed for wheezing, administered on 4/18/23 at 8:53 a.m. Review on 4/19/23 of the facility's policy titled, Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors, revised on 4/2014 revealed: .4. The staff and practitioner shall strive to minimize adverse consequences by: a. following relevant clinical guidelines and manufacturer's specifications for use, dose, administration, duration, and monitoring of the medication; . 9. Facility staff monitor the resident for possible medication-related adverse consequences, including mental status and level of consciousness, when the following conditions occur: . f. Medication error, e.g. [for example], wrong or expired medication Review on 4/19/23 of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications, revised 11/20 revealed: . 4. Drug containers that have missing, incomplete, improper, or incorrect labels are returned to the pharmacy for proper labeling before storing. Discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals are returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0680 (Tag F0680)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist. Find...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist. Findings include: Interview on 4/18/23 at approximately 10:30 a.m. with Staff G (Administrator) revealed that Staff F (Activities Director) had not completed necessary training required to direct an activities program.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0712 (Tag F0712)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #162 Review on 4/20/23 of Resident #162 electronic medical records revealed that Resident #162 was admitted to the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #162 Review on 4/20/23 of Resident #162 electronic medical records revealed that Resident #162 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review on 4/20/23 of Resident #162's provider initial comprehensive visit, dated 3/15/23, revealed that the initial comprehensive visit was done by a Advance Practical Registered Nurse (APRN) and not a physician. Interview on 4/20/23 at approximately 1:40 p.m. with Staff G (Administrator) confirmed the above findings. Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were seen by a physician at least once every 30 days during the first 90 days after admission to the facility and at least once every 60 days thereafter for 3 out of 3 residents reviewed for physician visits in a final sample of 12 residents reviewed (Resident identifiers are #161, #162 and #163). Findings include: Resident #161 Review on 4/20/23 of Resident #161's medical record revealed the following: Resident #161 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed that Resident #161 was seen by the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on the following dates: 10/21/22, 1/16/23, 2/15/23, and 4/6/23. There were no documented visits made by the physician. Interview on 4/20/23 at approximately 8:45 a.m. with Staff B (Director of Nurses) confirmed that there were no documented physician visits with Resident #161 since admission. Resident #163 Review on 4/20/23 of Resident #163's medical record revealed: Resident #163 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed that Resident #163 was seen by the NP on the following dates: 1/16/23, 2/15/23, 2/22/23, 3/8/23, and 3/15/23. Resident #163 was not seen by a physician until 3/21/23. Interview on 4/20/23 at approximately 8:50 a.m. with Staff B confirmed the above findings.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0946 (Tag F0946)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff were provided annual training for the facility's ethics program for 2 out of 3 staff reviewed. Finding...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff were provided annual training for the facility's ethics program for 2 out of 3 staff reviewed. Findings include: Review on 4/20/23 of Staff E's (Registered Nurse) educations/trainings revealed: Ethics and Compliance training was completed on 1/28/22. Review on 4/20/23 of Staff D's (Cook) educations/trainings revealed: Ethics and Compliance training was completed on 1/25/22. Interview on 4/20/23 at approximately 11:45 a.m. with Staff C (Human Resources Manager) confirmed that Ethics and Compliance trainings were not done annually. Review on 4/20/23 of the facility's policy titled, Covenant Living Communities and Services, Code of Conduct, dated 2019 revealed: .4.5 Training will be completed at or about the time of hire, when the employee's functions or duties change, when there are changes in the government regulations or policies and procedures occur, and also on an annual basis. Training will be provided annually and will be documented
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
  • • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in New Hampshire.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Hampshire facilities.
  • • 42% turnover. Below New Hampshire's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Covenant Living Of Keene's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within New Hampshire, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Covenant Living Of Keene Staffed?

CMS rates COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the New Hampshire average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Covenant Living Of Keene?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 9 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Covenant Living Of Keene?

COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by COVENANT LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 20 certified beds and approximately 18 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in KEENE, New Hampshire.

How Does Covenant Living Of Keene Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Covenant Living Of Keene?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Covenant Living Of Keene Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Covenant Living Of Keene Stick Around?

COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE has a staff turnover rate of 42%, 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 Covenant Living Of Keene Ever Fined?

COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Covenant Living Of Keene on Any Federal Watch List?

COVENANT LIVING OF KEENE 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.