GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Grafton County Nursing Home has a Trust Grade of C+, which means it is considered decent and slightly above average among nursing homes. It ranks #37 out of 73 facilities in New Hampshire, placing it in the bottom half, but it is #2 out of 5 in Grafton County, indicating it is one of the better options locally. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 6 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, receiving a top rating of 5 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 32%, which is well below the state average of 50%; this suggests that staff tend to stay long enough to build relationships with residents. There are no fines on record, which is a positive sign, but recent inspections revealed concerns such as failing to routinely offer evening snacks to residents and not providing appropriate adaptive equipment for some individuals, signaling areas that need improvement.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In New Hampshire
- #37/73
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 32% 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 54 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New Hampshire. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
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 (32%)
16 points below New Hampshire average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near New Hampshire average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
14pts below New Hampshire avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to determine if a device was a restraint for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for restraints in a final sample of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate adaptive equipment to maintain their ability to carry out Activities of Daily Livi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to identify resident preferences in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
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 obtained routine dental care for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for dental in a final sample of 24...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow standards of practice for the complete medical records as it related to the pronouncement of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Maple Unit
Interview on 1/29/25 at approximately 3:15 p.m. with Staff C (LNA) and Staff D (LNA) on the Maple Unit revealed that HS snacks are not offered routinely. Snacks are available if a resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the that the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the residents' status for 2 out of 2 resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct annual reviews of it's infection prevention and control programs policies and procedures which had the poten...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
6 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 complete a Preadmission Screening and Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
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 provide an ongoing program to s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services or assist a resident in making appointments to maintain good foot health for 1 of 2 r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0773
(Tag F0773)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain laboratory services as ordered by a physician for 1 resident in a final sample of 25 residents. (Resident ide...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) prior to the last covered day of Medicare services for 2 out of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to post the nurse staffing information in a prominent place readily accessible to visitors. The facility a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
1 deficiency
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the minimum required committee members attended meetings at least quarterly for 4 of the 4 quarterly mee...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • 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.
- • 32% turnover. Below New Hampshire's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Grafton County's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within New Hampshire, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Grafton County Staffed?
CMS rates GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the New Hampshire average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Grafton County?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME during 2022 to 2025. These included: 10 with potential for harm and 5 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Grafton County?
GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 135 certified beds and approximately 121 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in NORTH HAVERHILL, New Hampshire.
How Does Grafton County Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Grafton County?
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 Grafton County Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Grafton County Stick Around?
GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME has a staff turnover rate of 32%, 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 Grafton County Ever Fined?
GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME 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 Grafton County on Any Federal Watch List?
GRAFTON COUNTY NURSING HOME is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.