CRESTWOOD CENTER

40 CROSBY STREET, MILFORD, NH 03055 (603) 673-7061
For profit - Corporation 82 Beds GENESIS HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
61/100
#17 of 73 in NH
Last Inspection: December 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Crestwood Center in Milford, New Hampshire has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not outstanding among nursing homes. It ranks #17 out of 73 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #5 out of 21 in Hillsborough County, meaning only four local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2022 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is average, rated 3 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 55%, which is slightly above the state average. The facility has faced $15,646 in fines, which is concerning as it is higher than 85% of other facilities in New Hampshire. On the positive side, Crestwood Center offers more RN coverage than 93% of state facilities, ensuring better oversight of residents' health. However, there have been critical incidents such as a staff member mistakenly using the same insulin pen for two residents, potentially exposing them to bloodborne pathogens. Additionally, the facility has struggled to provide adequate staffing levels to meet residents' needs and does not currently employ a full-time qualified dietitian, which raises concerns about nutrition management. Overall, while there are some strengths, families should carefully consider the facility’s issues and recent trends before making a decision.

Trust Score
C+
61/100
In New Hampshire
#17/73
Top 23%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$15,646 in fines. Lower than most New Hampshire facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 57 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New Hampshire. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 2 issues
2024: 10 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 55%

Near New Hampshire avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $15,646

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: GENESIS HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (55%)

7 points above New Hampshire average of 48%

The Ugly 12 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jun 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that 2 of 4 residents reviewed for insulin were free from potential exposure to bloodborne pathogen transmiss...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that 2 of 4 residents reviewed for insulin were free from potential exposure to bloodborne pathogen transmission when staff administered insulin to two residents using the same insulin pen (Resident Identifiers are #1 and #2). Findings include: Interview on 6/26/24 at 10:45 a.m. with Staff B (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed that on 6/13/24 at around 9:00 a.m. he/she administered Resident #2's used Aspart insulin pen to Resident #1 by mistake. Resident #2's insulin pen was labeled for Resident #2. Staff B stated that he/she did not discard the insulin pen and used it shortly after on Resident #2 and then placed it back in the medication cart for continued use. Staff B stated that they thought that since the needle had been changed, there was no infection control concerns. Interview on 6/26/24 at approximately 9:15 a.m. with Staff A (Unit Manager) confirmed that Resident #1 had received Resident #2's Aspart insulin in error on 6/13/24 and that the insulin pen was returned to the medication cart for use for Resident #2 after it was used on Resident #1. Review on 6/26/24 of Resident #2's June Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the following orders for Aspart insulin: Aspart insulin 12 units two times a day, with a start date of 6/11/12 and an end date of 6/12/24; Aspart Insulin 12 units with meals, with a start date of 6/12/24 and an end date of 6/19/24. Further review of the June MAR revealed that Resident #2 received the following administrations of Aspart insulin from 6/13/24 through 6/17/24: 6/13/24- 3 doses administered; 6/14/24- 3 doses administered; 6/15/24- 3 doses administered; 6/16/24- 3 doses administered; and 6/17/24- 1 dose administered. Interview on 6/26/24 at approximately 1:00 p.m. with Staff C (Previous Director of Nursing) confirmed that Resident #2 had continued to receive Aspart insulin with the same insulin pen that was used on Resident #1 from 6/13/24 until 6/17/24. Staff C notified Public Health because the pen had been used on two different residents potentially exposing both residents to blood borne pathogens. Interview on 6/26/24 at 10:05 a.m. with Staff C revealed that he/she did not realize that there was an infection control concern with the above medication error until Monday 6/17/24. Staff C stated that he/she discarded Resident #2 Aspart insulin pen on 6/17/24 that had been in use. Interview on 6/26/24 at 11:40 a.m. with Staff D (Administrator) confirmed that he/she had been made aware of the medication error on 6/14/24; however, was not made aware of the infection control issue until 6/17/24 when the insulin pen was removed from the medication cart by Staff C. Interview on 6/26/24 at 1:15 p.m. with Staff D revealed that education regarding insulin pens was started for all staff on duty who administer insulin on 6/17/24 and all other staff received education prior to working their next shift. Review on 6/26/24 of the manufacturers' instructions for Insulin Aspart, provided by the facility, revealed: .Do Not share your Insulin Apart FlexPen or needles with anyone else. You may give an infection to them or get an infection from them . Review on 6/26/24 of the facility policy titled Insulin Pens revised on 2/28/21, revealed: .Insulin pens containing multiple doses of insulin are meant for single patient use only and must never be used for more than one person, even when the needle is changed . Review on 6/26/24 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) handout, retrieved 6/4/24, from https://www.cdc.gov/injection-safety/media/pdfs/Insulin-Pen-Safety-Handout-P.pdf revealed: .Injection equipment (e.g., insulin pens, needles and syringes) should never be used for more than one person . It is critical to remember that insulin pens are meant for only one person .Although invisible to the eye, back flow of blood into the insulin pen can happen during an injection. This creates a risk of bloodborne and bacterial pathogen transmission to patients if the pen is used for more than one person, even when the needle is changed . Review on 6/26/24 of the facility's documentation of education for medication administration and insulin pen safety to staff who administer medications was initiated on 6/17/24. This included the risk of bloodborne pathogens. Review on 6/26/24 of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting held on 6/18/24 revealed the facility reviewed the above incident which included a root cause analysis and plan for auditing. Review on 6/26/24 of the facility competencies revealed that they were started on 6/20/24 for staff insulin medication competencies.
Jan 2024 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to honor residents' choice for showers for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) in a fina...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to honor residents' choice for showers for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) in a final sample of 17 residents (Resident Identifier is #60). Findings include: Interview on 1/28/24 at 10:45 a.m. with Resident #60 revealed that he/she had not had a shower in 2 weeks and that he/she had requested one be given today and was told they would check and let him/her know. Resident #60 revealed that he/she wants to shower at least once a week. Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #60's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date of 11/6/23 revealed that Resident #60 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating cognitively intact. Interview on 1/29/24 at 9:10 a.m. with Resident #60 revealed that he/she had not received a shower when requested on 1/28/24. Review on 1/30/24 of Resident #60's tub/shower schedule under tasks in the electronic medical record for bathing revealed the following: In November 2023 he/she received 3 of 5 scheduled showers (11/14/23, 11/22/23, and 11/30/23); In December 2023 he/she received 2 of 4 scheduled showers (12/19/23 and 12/27/23); and as of January 28, 2024, he/she had received 2 of 4 scheduled showers (1/2/24 and 1/9/24). Further review revealed no documentation that Resident #60 refused showers. Review on 1/30/24 of the 200-floor shower schedule revealed that Resident #60 was scheduled for Wednesdays on the 7-3 shift. Interview on 1/30/24 at 11:54 a.m. with Staff H (Unit Manager) confirmed the above findings. Interview on 1/30/24 at 12:12 p.m. with Staff H revealed that on Wednesday, 1/24/24, Resident #60's scheduled day for a shower, Resident #60 was out of the facility at a doctor's appointment. Interview further revealed that Resident #60 was not rescheduled for a shower that week and that the facility would not offer the resident a shower outside of their scheduled time unless the resident asked. Review on 1/30/24 of the facility's policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), revised on 5/1/23, revealed, .Based on the comprehensive assessment of a patient and consistent with the patient's needs and choices, the Center must provide the necessary care and services to ensure that a patient's activities of daily living (ADL) abilities are maintained or improved . Activities of daily living (ADLs) include . bathing . ADL assistance that is not documented within 24 hours of occurring is considered late documentation . To ensure ADLs are provided in accordance with accepted standards of practice, the care plan, and the patie7nt's [sic] choice and preferences . 5. ADL care is documented every shift by the nursing assistant .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' formulated advance directives would be followed for 1 out of 17 residents in a final sample (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' formulated advance directives would be followed for 1 out of 17 residents in a final sample (Resident Identifier is #16). Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #16's care plan, with a revision date of 9/19/22, revealed Resident #16's code status to be Full Code. Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #16's current Electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) revealed code status of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #16's current paper chart revealed Resident #16's pink portable DNR form signed by the provider on 7/20/23. Interview on 1/29/24 at 2:06 p.m. with Staff H (Unit Manager) revealed resident #16's code status is DNR and Staff H confirmed the above findings. Review on 1/30/24 of facility policy OPS416 Person-Centered Care Plans, revised 10/24/22, revealed .review and revise the care plan after each assessment . assessment means after each . Minimum Data Set (MDS).
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

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 ensure that all allegations of abuse were reported to the administrator for 3 of 8 residents reviewed for abuse in a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all allegations of abuse were reported to the administrator for 3 of 8 residents reviewed for abuse in a final sample of 17 residents (Resident Identifiers are #2, #4, and #36.) Findings include: Resident #2 Review on 1/28/24 of the facility investigation into an allegation of abuse by Staff A (Medication Nursing Assistant (MNA)) with Resident #2 revealed that on 1/10/24 an interview was conducted with Staff B (Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)) regarding another concern. During this interview, Staff B revealed that on 1/9/24 there was an incident that occurred with Staff A and Resident #2. Staff B stated that he/she left Staff A in Resident #2's room to go and get linen and upon returning to the room, Staff A was next to Resident #2 and in an elevated voice stating, Don't tell me to shut up, I'll just leave you here. Resident #4 Review on 1/29/24 of the facility investigation into an allegation of abuse by Staff A revealed that the facility compliance line received the following anonymous complaint from an LNA on 1/10/24 of an abuse allegation with Resident #4, While preparing food for resident, [LNA name omitted] entered the room and yelled at the other LNA stating, Get out of here, [pronoun omitted] is not a feed, you have no business being in here. [LNA name omitted] then clapped [pronoun omitted] hands in the resident's face and said, Get up and eat your food. It's no one's job to feed you, you need to do it yourself. The incident happened on 1/9/24. Resident #36 Review on 1/30/24 of the facility investigation revealed that during an interview with Staff E (LNA), he/she witnessed Staff A yell at Resident #36 because Resident #36 wanted his/her medication. Staff E stated that Staff A told Resident #36 that if he/she did not stop bothering Staff A they would not get their medications at all. Staff E also observed Staff A raising his/her voice and slamming the drawers of the medication cart. Interviews on 1/29/24 and 1/30/24 with Staff C (Administrator) confirmed that he/she was not notified of the above allegation of abuse with Resident #2 until 24 hours later, the allegation of abuse with Resident #4 until 24 hours later, and the allegation of abuse with Resident #36 until over 48 hours later. Staff C revealed that a facility-wide education on abuse and timely reporting of allegations to the administator had been done on 1/10/24 (prior to the 1/16/24 incident). Review on 1/30/24 of the facility policy titled, OPS300 Abuse Prohibition, revision date 10/24/22 revealed: Process .6.1. Anyone who witnesses an incident of suspected abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, injuries of unknown origin, or misappropriation of patient property is to tell the abuser to stop immediately and report the incident to his/her supervisor immediately, regardless of shift worked .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remaine...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible regarding one resident room heater on 1 of 3 units observed (Unit 3). Findings include: Observation on 1/28/24 at 10:49 a.m. of resident room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a heater along the base of the window wall missing a heater cover, exposing sharp metal heater fins extending approximately 4 feet in length along the bottom of the wall. Interview on 1/29/24 at 1:15 p.m. with Resident #30 revealed the heater cover had been missing approximately 2 months, and they had caught their socks on the exposed metal fins, while in their wheelchair in resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. Interview on 1/29/24 at approximately 1:30 p.m. with Staff J (Facilities Director) revealed a work order had not been submitted for the missing heater cover through the facility's work order system. Review on 1/31/24 of the facility's policy titled SH100 Safety Management Program, revised 4/15/23, revealed: Purpose - To provide a safe environment of care to our patients/residents and a safe work environment for our employees.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet residents' needs in September 2023 and October 2023. Findings include: Review on 1/...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet residents' needs in September 2023 and October 2023. Findings include: Review on 1/30/24 of the Facility Assessment revealed that Consider the overall needs of your resident population based on your Facility Assessment, MDS [Minimum Data Set], Resident Population Profile and any additional source when indicating the number, average, range or ratio needed. Further review of the Facility Assessment revealed the following staffing levels for direct care staff: first and second shifts - Licensed Nurses (Registered Nurse (RN), Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) - Unit 1 was 1:10, Unit 2 was1:27, and Unit 3 was1:32; and Nurse aides (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA)) - Unit 1 was1:10, Unit 2 was1:14, and Unit 3 was 1:13. Review on 1/30/24 of the Daily Staffing Sheets from September 2023 to October 2023 revealed the following: 9/18/23 - Monday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 2 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit census 32 9/20/23 - Wednesday - Day shift - Unit 2 - 1 LPN, 7 a.m.-1 p.m. 1 CNA - Unit census 27 9/21/23 - Thursday - Evening shift - Unit 3 - 1 RN/ LPN, 1 CNA from 3-3:30 p.m. and 2 CNAs from 3:30 p.m.-5 p.m. - Unit census 31 9/22/23 - Friday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 1 RN/LPN, 1 CNA from 7:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. - Unit census 31 9/22/23 - Friday - Eve shift - Unit 3 - 1 RN, 2 CNAs from 4:30 p.m.-7:00 p.m. - Unit census 31 9/25/23 - Monday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 0 RN/LPN, 1 CNA from 7:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. and 2 CNAs from 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. - Unit census 31 9/26/23 - Tuesday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 2 RN/LPN, 1 CNA from 7 a.m.-9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. - Unit census 31 9/27/23 - Wednesday - Day shift - Unit 2 - 1 RN, 1 CNA from 12:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. - facility - Unit census 27 9/28/23 - Thursday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 1 LPN, 1 CNA- Unit census 31 9/29/23 - Friday - Day shift - Unit 2 - 1 RN, 1 CNA from 7:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. - Unit census 26 9/29/23 - Friday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 1 LPN, 1 CNA from 7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. - Unit census 30 9/29/23 - Friday - Eve shift - Unit 3 - 1 RN, 1 CNA from 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. - Unit census 30 9/30/23 - Saturday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 2 RN/LPN, 1 CNA from 7:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. - Unit census 30 9/30/23 - Saturday - Eve shift - Unit 3 - 0 RN/LPN, 1 CNA from 3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. - Unit census 30 10/1/23 - Sunday - Eve shift - Unit 3 - 1 RN, 1 CNA - Unit census 30 10/15/23 - Sunday - Day shift - Unit 1 - 1 RN, 0 CNA - Unit Census 9 10/15/23 - Sunday - Eve shift - Unit 1 - 1 RN, 0 CNA - Unit Census 9 10/16/23 - Monday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit Census 32 10/17/23 - Tuesday - Day shift - Unit 1 - 1 LPN, 0 CNA - Unit Census 9 10/17/23 - Tuesday - Day shift - Unit 2 - 1 RN, 1 CNA - Unit Census 27 10/17/23 - Tuesday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 1 LPN, 1 CNA - Unit Census 32 10/18/23 - Wednesday - Day shift - Unit 1 - 1 LPN, 0 CNA - Unit Census 8 10/18/23 - Wednesday - Day shift - Unit 2 - 1RN, 1 CNA - Unit Census 27 10/18/23 - Wednesday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 0 RN/LPN, 2 CNA - Unit Census 31 10/20/23 - Friday - Day shift - Unit 1 - 1 LPN, 0 CNA - Unit Census 10 10/20/23 - Friday - Day shift - Unit 2 - 1 RN, 1 CNA - Unit Census 27 10/21/23 - Saturday - Day shift - Unit 1 - 1 RN, 0 CNA - Unit Census 10 10/21/23 - Saturday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 1 LPN, 1 CNAs - Unit Census 30 10/21/23 - Sunday - Day shift - Unit 1 - 1 RN, 0 CNA - Unit Census 10 10/25/23 - Wednesday - Day shift - Unit 3 - 0 RN/LPN, 3 CNA - Unit Census 31 Interview on 1/30/24 at 12:40 p.m. with Staff C (Administrator) confirmed the above findings. Interview on 1/29/24 with Staff N (Regional Nurse) revealed that a staffing action plan resulted from a November meeting with staff where staffing concerns were voiced. Staff revealed that staffing was monitored by weekly calls to address staff call outs and schedule patterns. Review on 1/30/24 of meeting announcement for staff input on 11/20/23 revealed staff voiced staffing concerns to management.
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, the facility failed to employ a full-time qualified dietician or other clinically qualified nutrition professional to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services. Fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, the facility failed to employ a full-time qualified dietician or other clinically qualified nutrition professional to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services. Findings include: Interview on 1/28/24 at 9:33 a.m. with Staff G (Food Services Director) revealed that Staff G became the director a month ago. Staff G started as a dietary aide and part-time chef 7 years ago at the facility. Interview further revealed that Staff G was not certified as a dietary or food service manager, did not have a degree in food service management or in hospitality, and had not had two or more years of experience as director of food services. Interview on 1/28/24 at 2:00 p.m. with Staff C (Administrator) revealed that the facility does not employ a full-time qualified dietician.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide timely notifications of the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Advance Beneficiary Notice (ABN) and Notice of Me...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide timely notifications of the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Advance Beneficiary Notice (ABN) and Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for 3 out of 3 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Notices (Resident Identifiers are #50, #18, and #270). Findings include: Resident #50 Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #50's SNF Beneficiary Notification Review for Residents who Received Medicare Part A Services (FORM CMS-20052) revealed that the facility/provider initiated discharge from Medicare Part A Services when benefit days were not exhausted (he/she stayed at the facility) and that his/her last covered skilled day was 1/5/24, the ABN and the NOMNC provided by facility revealed .services end date 1/5/24 . notification to Resident/Resident's representative was given on 1/4/24. Resident #18 Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #18's SNF Beneficiary Notification Review for Residents who Received Medicare Part A Services revealed that the facility/provider initiated discharge from Medicare Part A Services when benefit days were not exhausted (he/she stayed at the facility) and that his/her last covered skilled day was 12/18/23, the ABN and the NOMNC provided by the facility revealed .services end date 12/18/23 . notification to Resident/Resident's representative was given on 12/18/23. Resident #270 Review on 1/29/24 of Resident #270's SNF Beneficiary Notification Review for Residents who Received Medicare Part A Services revealed that the facility/provider initiated discharge from Medicare Part A Services when benefit days were not exhausted (he/she was discharged home from the facility) and that his/her last covered skilled day was 12/18/23. The NOMNC provided by facility revealed that .services end date 12/18/23 . notification to Resident/Resident's representative was given on 12/18/23. Interview on 1/29/24 at 1:19 p.m. with Staff D (Business Office Manager) confirmed the above findings. Review on 1/29/24 of the facility policy 50.8 - Effective ABN Delivery revealed ABN delivery is considered to be effective when the ABN is: .4. Provided far enough in advance of delivering potentially non-covered items or services to allow sufficient time for the beneficiary to consider all available options .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with activities designed to meet their preferences, interests, and needs in the evenings since Nov...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with activities designed to meet their preferences, interests, and needs in the evenings since November 2023. Findings include: Interview on 1/28/24 at approximately 2:00 p.m. with members of the Resident Council revealed that activities were not offered in the evening and that residents have asked for Movie Nights to be offered in the evenings during the week and on weekends. Review on 1/28/24 of the Activities Calendars for December 2023 and January 2024 revealed the facility did not provide activities in the evenings after 3 p.m. Interview on 1/29/24 at approximately 12:30 a.m. with Staff C (Administrator) confirmed the above findings. Review on 1/31/24 of the facility's policy titled REC200 Resident's/Patient's Choice, revised 4/7/18, revealed: Residents/Patients have the right to participate or not participate in leisure and recreation of their choosing.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

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 the required committee members attended meetings at least quarterly for 3 of the 4 quarterly meetings re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the required committee members attended meetings at least quarterly for 3 of the 4 quarterly meetings reviewed in 2023. Findings include: Review on 1/26/24 of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting attendance sheets from 2023 revealed the following required members were not in attendance: Quarter 1 - Administrator and Infection Preventionist; Quarter 2 - Administrator and Infection Preventionist; and Quarter 4 - Administrator and 2 other members of the facility's staff. Interview on 1/28/24 at approximately 2:35 p.m. with Staff C (Administrator) confirmed the above findings. Review on 1/28/24 of the facility's policy titled Center Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Process, revised 10/24/22, revealed: . 2. The QAA Committee: . 2.1.1 Administrator, 2.1.2 Director of Nursing, 2.1.3 Medical Director, 2.1.4 Infection Preventionist, or designee .
Dec 2022 2 deficiencies
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 observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician's orders and s...

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 follow physician's orders and standards of practice when checking a blood glucose level and administering insulin to a resident in a timely manner for 1 of 4 residents observed for medication pass in a standard survey sample of 19 residents (Resident identifier is #45). Findings include: Professional reference: [NAME] A. [NAME] 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 physicians' 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 . Page 706-709-Standards .The prescriber often gives specific instructions about when to administer a medication Page 707 .To prevent medication errors, follow the six rights of medication administration consistently every time you administer medications. Many medication errors can be linked, in some way, to an inconsistency in adhering to the six rights of medication administration. The six rights of medication administration include the following: 1. The right medication 2. The right dose 3. The right client 4. The right route 5. The right time 6. The right documentation . Observation on 12/15/22 at 8:25 a.m. of Staff B (Registered Nurse) administering medications to Resident #45, revealed that Resident #45's finished breakfast tray was on the over bed tray table. Staff B checked Resident #45's blood glucose level and got a reading of 355 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter). Staff B then administered Resident #45's scheduled 10 units of Humalog insulin. Interview on 12/15/22 at 8:25 a.m. with Resident #45 revealed that he/she had consumed his/her breakfast and had eaten several cookies after breakfast. Review on 12/15/22 of Resident #45's December 2022 Medication Administration Record revealed a physician's order (with a start date of 12/13/22) for a blood sugar check and insulin administration at 7:30 a.m. Further review revealed the order was to administer 10 units of scheduled Humalog insulin approximately 10 minutes prior to meal [breakfast]. Staff B documented Resident #45's blood glucose level of 355 mg/dL and checked that the Humalog insulin had been administered (corresponding with the above observation). Review on 12/15/22 of Resident #45's care plan revealed, . Focus . the resident has a diagnosis of diabetes: insulin dependent . Interventions . Access and record blood glucose levels as ordered . Administer hypoglycemic medications as ordered . Interview on 12/14/22 at 1:24 p.m. with Staff B confirmed that Resident #45's blood sugar check and insulin were ordered by the physician for 7:30 a.m. and that the insulin was ordered to be administered 10 minutes before breakfast. Staff B confirmed that this was not done. Review on 12/16/22 of the facility's policy titled .General Dose Preparation and Medication Administration revised 1/1/22, revealed, .4.1 Facility staff should . Verify each time a medication is administered that is the correct medication, at the correct dose, at the correct route, at the correct rate, at the correct time . 5. During medication administration, Facility staff should take all measures required by Facility policy and Applicable Law, including, but not limited to the following . 5.4 Administer medications within timeframes specified by Facility policy or manufacturer's information .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0885 (Tag F0885)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to inform residents, their representatives, and families of those residing in the facilities, by 5:00 p.m. the next cal...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to inform residents, their representatives, and families of those residing in the facilities, by 5:00 p.m. the next calendar day, following the occurrence of a single confirmed infection of COVID-19 for 2 out of 4 days of positive test results. Findings include: Review on 12/15/22 of the facility's COVID Line Listing revealed two residents were tested in the facility for COVID-19 on 12/8/22 and tested positive. Interview on 12/16/22 at 10:10 a.m. with Staff A (Administrator) revealed that the facility did not inform residents, their representatives or families of the positive COVID-19 cases confirmed on 12/8/22 by 5:00 p.m. the next calender day.
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

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 12 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $15,646 in fines. Above average for New Hampshire. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • 55% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 61/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Crestwood Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CRESTWOOD 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 Crestwood Center Staffed?

CMS rates CRESTWOOD CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, which is 9 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Crestwood Center?

State health inspectors documented 12 deficiencies at CRESTWOOD CENTER during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 7 with potential for harm, and 4 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Crestwood Center?

CRESTWOOD CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by GENESIS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 82 certified beds and approximately 62 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MILFORD, New Hampshire.

How Does Crestwood Center Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, CRESTWOOD CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Crestwood Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Crestwood Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CRESTWOOD CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Crestwood Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at CRESTWOOD CENTER is high. At 55%, the facility is 9 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Crestwood Center Ever Fined?

CRESTWOOD CENTER has been fined $15,646 across 1 penalty action. This is below the New Hampshire average of $33,235. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Crestwood Center on Any Federal Watch List?

CRESTWOOD 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.