MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER

235 MYRTLE STREET, MANCHESTER, NH 03104 (603) 627-3811
Non profit - Church related 122 Beds CATHOLIC CHARITIES NEW HAMPSHIRE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#23 of 73 in NH
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

Mount Carmel Rehabilitation and Nursing Center in Manchester, New Hampshire, has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is recommended and performs above average compared to other facilities. It ranks #23 out of 73 nursing homes in New Hampshire, placing it in the top half, and #9 out of 21 in Hillsborough County, showing there are only eight better options locally. The facility is improving, as the number of issues identified decreased from five in 2024 to two in 2025. Staffing is rated at 4 out of 5 stars, which is positive, but it has a concerning RN coverage level that falls below 80% of state facilities, meaning they may not have enough registered nurses to catch potential issues. While there have been no fines, which is a good sign, there have been some concerning incidents, including a failure to ensure a resident could safely self-administer their medications and not reporting a missing valuable to the appropriate authorities. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and a good overall rating, families should be aware of the specific concerns raised during inspections.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In New Hampshire
#23/73
Top 31%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Hampshire facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New Hampshire. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 50%

Near New Hampshire avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: CATHOLIC CHARITIES NEW HAMPSHIRE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

May 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was clinically appropriate to self-administer their medications for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for choices in a final sample size of 23 residents (Resident Identifier #4). Findings include: Observation on 5/20/24 at approximately 9:15 a.m. in Resident #4's room revealed the following medications on a shelf near the resident sitting in his/her recliner: 1 bottle of Biotics Calcium; 1 bottle of Turmeric m1670; 1 bottle of Vitamin C 500 milligrams (mg); 1 bottle of [NAME] Liquid. Interview on 5/20/24 at approximately 9:15 a.m. with Resident #4 revealed that he/she takes the medications on his/her own. Further interview revealed that Resident #4 administers: [NAME] liquid -daily for his/her blood pressure; Turmeric m1670- as needed for pain; Vitamin C -1 or 2 times per week; Biotics Calcium -daily. Observation and interview on 5/21/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff E (Licensed Practical Nurse) of Resident #4's room revealed the above medications on a shelf near the resident sitting in his/her recliner. Staff E confirmed the findings. Review on 5/21/24 of Resident #4's May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following physician order's: [NAME] Oral Capsule 150 mg ([NAME]) Give 1 capsule by mouth in the morning every 2 day(s) for supplement. Unsupervised self-administration, family provides. Start Date 12/30/23. Further review of Resident #4's MAR revealed that he/she did not have physician's order for Turmeric m1670, Vitamin C 500 mg and Biotics Calcium. Review on 5/21/24 of Resident #4's medical record revealed that there was no assessment for self administering medications done with Resident #4. Interview on 5/21/24 at approximately 12:30 p.m. with Staff F (Director of Nursing) confirmed that Resident #4 was not assessed for the ability to self administer medications. Interview on 5/21/24 at approximately 1:50 p.m. with Staff K (Nurse Practitioner) revealed that he/she was not aware of Resident #4 administering his/her medication. Staff K also revealed that they were not aware of Resident #4 administering the [NAME] liquid every day instead of every other day. Review on 5/21/24 of the facility policy titled, Self-Administration By Resident, Dated 11/17 revealed: .Procedures: 1. If the resident desires to self-administer medications, an assessment is conducted by the interdisciplinary team of the resident's cognitive, physical, and visual ability to carry out this responsibility, during the care plan process .
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 out of 9 allegations reviewed (Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation to the State Survey Agency (SSA) for 1 out of 9 allegations reviewed (Resident Identifier #42). Findings include: Review on 5/20/24 of the facility grievance log revealed the following allegation of misappropriation that was not reported to the SSA: Resident #42 Review on 6/4/23 a grievance was filed by Resident #42's Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) for Resident #42's missing gold and diamond wedding ring set. Interview on 5/20/24 at approximately 12:00 p.m. with Staff A (Social Worker) revealed that the missing items were not reported to the SSA or the local police. Interview on 5/21/24 at approximately 8:45 a.m. with Staff D (Administrator) confirmed the above findings. Review on 5/20/24 of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention and Reporting, Revision Date 10/24/22 revealed: .3. All alleged violations involving abuse, neglect or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, will be reported immediately after the incident is discovered or observed by the employee to the employee's supervisor on duty. The supervisor on duty has the responsibility to report same immediately to the facility Administrator (or designee). The facility will investigate and report all allegations of abusive conduct to the state agency. 4. Initial Report The administrator or designee will report alleged violations involving abuse, neglect or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation to the . the State Agency through the Ombudsman's Office reporting system immediately .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

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 follow physician orders for 1 resident out o...

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 follow physician orders for 1 resident out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and for 1 of 31 medications observed for medication administration in a final sample of 23 residents (Resident Identifier #157 and #65). Standards: [NAME], [NAME] A., and [NAME]. Fundamentals of Nursing. 7th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier, 2009. Page 336- Physicians' Orders .The physician is responsible for directing medical treatment. Nurses follow physician's orders unless they believe the orders are in error or harm clients. Therefore you need to assess all orders, and if you find one to be erroneous or harmful, further clarification from the physician is necessary . Review on 5/21/24 of Resident #157's May 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following physician's order: Midrodrine HCL [Hydrochloric Acid] Tablet 10 mg [milligrams], Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for BP [Blood Pressure] hold for SBP [Systolic Blood Pressure] greater than 160. Do not give after 6 pm., Start Date 5/7/24. Further review revealed that the medications were held with the following blood pressures: 5/17 SBP 151; 5/18 SBP 143. Interview on 5/21/24 at approximately 1:30 p.m. with Staff F (Director of Nursing) confirmed the above findings. Resident #65 Review on 5/20/24 of Resident #65's medication orders revealed an order for Midodrine 5mg, take by mouth three times per day related to orthostatic hypotension. Hold for SBP > (greater than symbol) than 110. Observation on 5/20/24 at approximately 8:30 a.m. with Staff H (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed Staff H obtained Resident #65's SBP reading of 149. Staff H then poured Midodrine (medication to prevent blood pressure from dropping) to be administered to Resident #65. Interview on 5/20/24 at approximately 8:35 a.m. with Staff H confirmed that medication should not be administered as Resident #65's SBP was 149, which is greater than 110. Interview further revealed that Staff H did not understand the symbols used to indicate greater than in the physicians' order. Review on 5/20/24 of Resident #65's MAR for May 2024 revealed that 5 doses of Midodrine were given with a SBP greater than 110. The doses were as follows: On 5/2/24 the evening dose was administered with a SBP of 162; On 5/5 24 the evening dose was administered with a SBP of 126; On 5/7/24 the evening dose was administered with a SBP of 154, On 5/16/24 the afternoon dose was administered with a SBP of 148; On 5/16/24 the evening dose was administered with a SBP of 147. Review on 5/20/24 of Resident #65's May 2024 MAR revealed the following physician's order: Lutein Oral Capsule 6 mg, Give 1 capsule by mouth in the morning for supplement, Start Date 11/1/23. Further review revealed that on 5/2, 5/3, 5/4, 5/6, 5/8, 5/9, and 5/10 the medication was indicated as not being available. Interview on 5/21/24 at approximately 1:30 p.m. with Staff F confirmed the above findings. Interview on 5/21/24 at approximately 1:50 p.m. with Staff K (Nurse Practitioner) revealed that he/she was not notified of the medication not being available. Review on 5/21/24 of the facility policy titled, 3.12 Medication Shortages, dated 9/10 revealed: .2. Nursing staff shall, if the shortage will impact the patient's immediate need of the ordered product: a. Notify the attending physician of the situation, explain the circumstances, expected availability and optional therapy(ies) that are available. b. Obtain a new order and cancel/discontinue the order for the non-available medication .
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 and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were secured for 1 of 4 medication carts observed. Observation on 5/20/24 at 8:20 a.m. of the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were secured for 1 of 4 medication carts observed. Observation on 5/20/24 at 8:20 a.m. of the third floor Westside Medication Cart revealed it was unlocked with no staff within sight. There were 4 residents seated at tables and eating breakfast within 10 feet of the unlocked medication cart. Interview on 5/20/24 at 8:24 a.m. with Staff J (Medication Nursing Assistant (MNA)) confirmed the cart was unlocked while he/she stepped away for a few minutes. Review of facility policy, Medication Storage, dated 01/2021, revealed: .Procedures: .3. In order to limit access to prescription medications, only licensed nurses, pharmacy staff, and those lawfully authorized to administer medications (such as medication aides) are allow access to medication carts. Medication rooms, cabinets and medication supplies should remain locked when not in use or attended by persons with authorized access .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**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 the residents' Minimum Data Set ...

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 the residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected the resident's status for 3 residents in a final sample of 22 residents (Resident Identifiers #83, #89 and #103). Findings include: Resident #103 Review on 5/22/24 of Resident #103's MDS within an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) date of 2/25/24, section A2105: Discharge Status, revealed that Short-Term General Hospital (acute hospital, IPPS) was selected. Review on 5/22/24 of Resident #103's Notice of Transfer/ Discharge revealed that Resident #103 was discharged home on 2/23/24. Interview on 5/22/24 at 9:44 a.m. with Staff G (Clinical Assessment Manager) confirmed the above MDS was incorrect and Resident #103 was discharged home. Resident #83 Review on 5/21/24 of Resident #83's progress note dated 12/23/23 revealed that Resident #83 was being discharged to home. Review on 5/21/24 of Resident #83's MDS with an ARD date of 12/28/23 revealed under section A0310F, Type of Assessment - entry/discharge reporting, revealed that 99, None of the above, was coded. Interview on 5/21/24 at 1:00 p.m. with Staff G confirmed the above finding. Staff G stated that the MDS was coded incorrectly and that the MDS should have been coded as a Discharge assessment - return not anticipated. Resident #89 Review on 5/21/24 of Resident #89's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 4/11/24 revealed under section N0415 Medications: High-Risk Drug Classes: Use and Indication A. Antipsychotic was coded indicating that Resident #89 had received an antipsychotic medication during the last 7 days. Review on 5/21/24 of Resident #89's Medication Administration Record for April revealed that no antipsychotic medication was ordered or administered for April 4 through April 11, 2024. Review on 5/21/24 of Resident #89's medical record revealed that there was an order for an antipsychotic (Olanzapine) that was discontinued on 11/9/23. Interview on 5/21/24 at 1:42 a.m. with Staff G confirmed the above findings and that the MDS dated [DATE], was coded incorrectly.
Apr 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, observation, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment were thoroughly inv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment were thoroughly investigated for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse in a final sample of 18 residents (Resident identifier is #32). Findings include: Resident #32 Observation on 4/25/23 at approximately 12:14 p.m. of Resident #32 revealed a large greenish purple area to their right wrist going from under the wrist, at mid-circumference, extending around to the top of wrist and going up to the top of the pinky finger. The top of the hand appeared to be slightly swollen compared to the left hand and surrounding skin was slightly darker pink in color than the left hand. Interview on 4/25/23 at approximately 12:20 p.m. with Staff D (Licensed Nursing Assistant) confirmed the discolored area on Resident #32's right wrist and hand. Staff D stated he/she had seen the areas last Wednesday [4/19/23] and reported this finding to Staff F (Registered Nurse). Interview on 4/25/23 at approximately 12:30 p.m. with Staff A (Nurse Manager) revealed he/she was unaware of this area to Resident #32's wrist and hand and there was no investigation of the injury of unknown orgin.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the provider of a change in residents' condition and failed to assess and monitor identified areas of concern...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the provider of a change in residents' condition and failed to assess and monitor identified areas of concern for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse out of a final sample of 18 residents (Resident identifier is #32). Findings include: Resident #32 Observation on 4/25/23 at approximately 12:14 p.m. of Resident #32 revealed a large discolored area to their right outer wrist going from under the wrist, at mid-circumference, extending around to the top of wrist and going up to the pinky finger. The area appeared to be slightly swollen compared to left hand and the surrounding skin was slightly darker pink in color than the left hand. Review on 4/26/23 of Resident #32's medical record revealed no documentation regarding Resident #32's bruised right wrist and hand until a note dated 4/25/23, with an entry time of 1:29 p.m., stated that a bruise of unknown origin was noted to right hand. Blueish in color swelling and pain noted. Nurse Practitioner and DPOA [Durable Power of Attorney] notified at that time and [an] x-ray ordered., Further review of Resident #32's medical record revealed the x-ray of the right wrist and hand showed evidence of a right fractured 5th finger. Interview on 4/26/23 at approximately 9:00 a.m. with Staff A (Nurse Manager) confirmed the above areas and stated he/she was not aware of the areas on Resident #32's right hand and wrist. Interview on 4/27/23 at approximately 9:05 a.m. with Staff F (Registered Nurse) revealed he/she had been made aware of the discolored area to the right hand on 4/19/23, but at the time was only discolored on the top of the hand. Staff F stated he/she reported this to Staff A at the daily meeting and initiated a treatment order to monitor the area twice a day. Staff F confirmed he/she did not write a note or call a provider about the area.
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 policy review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure expired medications were properly disposed of in 1 of 3 medication rooms and on 1 of 6 medicatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure expired medications were properly disposed of in 1 of 3 medication rooms and on 1 of 6 medication carts (Resident identifiers are #67 and #87). Findings Include: Second Floor Medication Room Observation on 4/25/23 at 8:45 a.m. of the second floor medication room revealed a bottle of Pantoprazole Sodium 40 milligram (mg) tablets, expired 1/2023, and a bottle of Levothyroxine Sodium 75 microgram (mcg) tablets, expired 10/30/22, available for use for Resident #67. Interview on 4/25/23 at 8:45 a.m. with Staff G (Registered Nurse) and Staff H (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed Resident #67 was prescribed the above medications and confirmed the finding. Review of facility's Medication Storage policy revealed: Outdated, contaminated, discontinued or deteriorated medications .are immediately removed from stock, disposed of . Fourth Floor Medication Cart Observation on 4/25/23 at 9:15 a.m. of the fourth floor medication cart revealed a vile of Insulin Aspart 100 units/milliliter (ml) in use with an open date of 3/18/23 (open expiration date of 4/15/23) for Resident #87. Interview on 4/25/23 at 9:15 a.m. with Staff I (Registered Nurse) and Staff J (Assistant Director of Nursing) confirmed the finding. Review of Insulin Aspart manufacturer specifications revealed: Throw away all opened insulin aspart vials after 28 days, even if they still have insulin left in them.
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 B+ (80/100). 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.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the New Hampshire average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER during 2023 to 2024. These included: 7 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?

MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by CATHOLIC CHARITIES NEW HAMPSHIRE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 122 certified beds and approximately 112 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MANCHESTER, New Hampshire.

How Does Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (50%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?

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 Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 4-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 Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Stick Around?

MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 50%, 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 Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Ever Fined?

MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 Mount Carmel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

MOUNT CARMEL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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.