THE ELMS CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Elms Center has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #72 out of 73 facilities in New Hampshire places it in the bottom half, and it ranks last in Hillsborough County. The facility's performance is worsening, with issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Staffing is rated below average with a turnover rate of 56%, which is concerning as it suggests that staff do not stay long enough to build relationships with residents. Additionally, the center has incurred $13,020 in fines, indicating compliance issues more severe than 86% of New Hampshire facilities. Specific incidents raise further concerns: a resident experienced a serious fall after being provided a new wheelchair without a safety belt, and the facility failed to properly implement its water management plan, which could impact residents' health. Moreover, inadequate staffing levels have led to delays in responding to residents' needs and administering treatments. While the facility does have average RN coverage, these issues highlight a troubling environment for potential residents and their families.
- Trust Score
- F
- In New Hampshire
- #72/73
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $13,020 in fines. Higher than 53% of New Hampshire facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New Hampshire. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below New Hampshire average (3.0)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
10pts above New Hampshire avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
8 points above New Hampshire average of 48%
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
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 is fully informed of their care and treatment in a language that he/she understands for 1 of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to formulate advance directives for 1 out of 2 residents reviewed for advance di...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to hold routine interdisciplinary care plan meetings for 2 of 16 residents reviewed for care planning in a final sample...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 multidose medications were labeled with opened/expiration dates appropriately in 1of 1 med...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was labeled and failed to maintain a clean environment in the food preparation area fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the required committee members attended Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings at lea...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement and review, at least annually, the facility's water management plan that has the potential to effect the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days after a significant change was determined f...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post daily the nurse staffing information.
Findings include:
Observation on 1/9/25 at approximately 9:45 a.m. of all f...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility assessment included...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
7 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · 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 assess a resident after implem...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 orders for 5 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 store medication and therapeutic nutrition according to manufacturer instructions in 1 of 1 medication...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0811
(Tag F0811)
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 ensure that a resident with co...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation, interview, and policy review it was determined that the facility failed to follow Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for infection ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, observation, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to ensure that each resident attained or maintained the highest practicable...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and/or resident's representative of care plan meetings for 1 resident in a final sample of 20 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
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 obtain a Preadmission Screening and Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care in regards to a residents' bowel management by failing to follow a residents' bowel regimen for 1 of 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Observation on 1/18/23 at approximately 8:15 a.m. in the doorway to the kitchen revealed Staff D (Unit Aid) had pulled his/her mask down below his/her chin to speak with another employee.
Interview on...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0885
(Tag F0885)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to notify residents, resident representatives, and families of those residing in the facility by 5:00 p.m. the next calendar...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $13,020 in fines. Above average for New Hampshire. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is The Elms Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE ELMS CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within New Hampshire, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is The Elms Center Staffed?
CMS rates THE ELMS CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Elms Center?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at THE ELMS CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 15 with potential for harm, and 5 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates The Elms Center?
THE ELMS 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 ROBERT RAUSMAN, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 52 certified beds and approximately 44 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MILFORD, New Hampshire.
How Does The Elms Center Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, THE ELMS CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (56%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Elms Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is The Elms Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE ELMS 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at The Elms Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at THE ELMS CENTER is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 The Elms Center Ever Fined?
THE ELMS CENTER has been fined $13,020 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the New Hampshire average of $33,209. 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 The Elms Center on Any Federal Watch List?
THE ELMS 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.