CEDAR HEALTHCARE CENTER

188 JONES AVENUE, PORTSMOUTH, NH 03801 (603) 431-2530
For profit - Limited Liability company 102 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#3 of 73 in NH
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Cedar Healthcare Center has received an impressive Trust Grade of A, indicating it is an excellent choice for families seeking care for their loved ones. It ranks #3 out of 73 facilities in New Hampshire, placing it in the top tier of nursing homes in the state, and #1 out of 12 in Rockingham County, meaning there are no better local options. The trend is improving, with a reduction in issues from three in 2024 to one in 2025, which is a positive sign for prospective residents. Staffing is average at 3 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 36%, better than the state average of 50%, indicating that staff members tend to stay longer. However, there are some concerns: recent inspections revealed issues such as failing to complete recommended medical tests for a resident and inadequate smoking assessments for residents who smoke, which could pose potential risks. Overall, while Cedar Healthcare Center has many strengths, families should be aware of these specific weaknesses as they make their decision.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In New Hampshire
#3/73
Top 4%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
3 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
36% 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
○ Average
Each resident gets 35 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
7 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (36%)

    12 points below New Hampshire average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 36%

10pts below New Hampshire avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 7 deficiencies on record

Jun 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility acted upon provider approved recommendations that were identified by the pharmacist during ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility acted upon provider approved recommendations that were identified by the pharmacist during the monthly Pharmacy Medication Regimen Review for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in a final sample of 18 residents. (Resident Identifier is #61). Findings include: Review on 6/25/25 of Resident #61's Pharmacy Review dated 3/13/25 revealed a recommendation to the physician/prescriber to Please consider ordering a serum Vitamin D 25-OH level (25-hydroxyvitamin D). Further review revealed that Yes, order a serum Vitamin D 25-OH level was checked in the affirmative and signed/dated by Staff A (Advanced Practice Registered Nurse) on 3/19/25. Review on 6/25/25 of Resident #61's medical record revealed there was no documentation that the above test had been completed. Interview on 6/25/25 at 2:20 p.m. with Staff B (Unit Manager) confirmed the above test was not completed. Interview on 6/25/25 at 2:58 p.m. with Staff A revealed that he/she had agreed to the above pharmacy recommendation and was not aware that it had not been done. Review on 6/25/25 of the facility's policy titled Medication Regimen Review revised on 4/10/25 revealed, . 1. Medication Regimen Review (MRR), or Drug Regimen Review, is a thorough evaluation of the medication regimen of a resident, with the goal of promoting positive outcomes and minimizing adverse consequences and potential risks associated with medication . 7 .f. Facility staff shall act upon all recommendations according to procedures for addressing medication regimen review irregularities.
May 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement smoking policies for 1 of 2 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement smoking policies for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for smoking in a final sample of 22 residents (Resident Identifier #66). Findings include: Review on 5/7/24 of the facility's list of residents who smoke revealed that Resident #66 was identified as a smoker by the facility. Review on 5/7/24 of Resident #66's medical record revealed that Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review on 5/7/24 of Resident #66's medical record revealed Resident #66 did not have a smoking assessment to assess for safety of smoking. Further review revealed there was no care plan for smoking. Review on 5/7/24 of the facility's binder titled Vape and Lighter Log revealed that Resident #66 had been signed out to smoke on the following dates: 4/26/24, 4/28/24, 5/1/24, 5/4/24, 5/6/24 and 5/7/24. Interview on 5/7/24 at approximately 11:27 a.m. with Resident #66 revealed that he/she does smoke outside and that staff keep the lighters at the nursing station. Further interview with Resident #66 revealed that cigarettes are kept in his/her room. Interview on 5/7/24 at approximately 11:30 a.m. with Staff A (Unit Manager) confirmed that Resident #66 smokes and that the lighters are kept at the nursing station. Further interview with Staff A confirmed that Resident #66 was not assessed for safety with smoking. Review on 5/8/24 of facility's policy titled Resident Smoking review and revision date 4/30/24, revealed under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines . #7. Residents who smoke will be further assessed, using the Resident Safe Smoking Assessment . #8. Residents will smoke in accordance with his/her care plan.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure their arbitration agreement contained all the necessary elements for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for binding ar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure their arbitration agreement contained all the necessary elements for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for binding arbitration in a final sample of 22 (Resident Identifiers are #60, #66, and #83). Findings include: Review on 5/8/24 of Resident #60, #66, and #83's signed arbitration agreements revealed that the agreements did not grant the resident or his/her representative the right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing it and did not explicitly state that neither the resident nor his/her representative is required to sign an agreement for binding arbitration as a condition of admission. Interview on 5/8/24 at approximately 12:33 p.m. with Staff B (Regional Director of Operations) confirmed the above findings.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0848 (Tag F0848)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the arbitration agreement provided for the selection of a venue that is convenient to both parties for 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the arbitration agreement provided for the selection of a venue that is convenient to both parties for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for binding arbitration in a final sample of 22 residents (Resident Identifiers are #60, #66, and #83). Findings include: Review on 5/8/24 of Resident #60, #66, and #83's signed arbitration agreements revealed that the agreement did not provide for the selection of a venue that is convenient to both parties. Interview on 5/8/24 at approximately 11:18 a.m. with Staff C (Regional Nurse) confirmed the above findings. Interview on 5/8/24 at approximately 12:33 p.m. with Staff B (Regional Director of Operations) confirmed the above findings.
May 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the residents' envi...

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 ensure that the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for smoking in a final sample of 27 residents (Resident Identifier is #3). Findings include: Review on 5/12/23 of Resident #3's care plan revealed that Resident #3 smokes independently, and has the following interventions in place: 1. Educate and remind to keep smoking materials in a safe place. 3. Educate and remind of center policy and expectations. 4. Re-enforce that no smoking is allowed in the building. Review on 5/12/23 of Resident #3's smoking assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #3 was assessed to smoke independently and is aware of the facility's smoking policy. Review on 5/12/23 of section C of Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/14/23 revealed that Resident #3 has a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of a 14 indicating that Resident #3 is cognitively intact. Observation on 5/12/23 at approximately 11:50 a.m. of Resident #3's room revealed an electronic cigarette on Resident #3's bedside table. Interview on 5/12/23 at approximately 11:52 a.m. with Resident #3 who stated that he/she keeps a lighter in the bedside table drawer and charges the electronic cigarette on top on the bedside table. Interview on 5/12/23 at approximately 11:55 a.m. with Staff C (Director of Nursing) revealed that residents who were assessed to smoke independently may keep cigarettes in their room but may not keep lighters or electronic cigarettes. Observation on 5/12/23 at approximately 12:00 p.m. with Staff C of Resident #3's bedside table drawer contents revealed a lighter and on top of the bedside table, an electronic cigarette. Review of the facility smoking policy titled Resident Smoking revised on 8/1/21 .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: Number 4 .Electronic cigarettes will be treated the same as any other smoking product. Interview on 5/12/23 at approximately 1:49 p.m. with Staff D (Front Desk Receptionist) confirmed that resident's smoking materials are supposed to be kept in a lock box behind the reception desk and residents stop and pick up their lighters and smoking materials prior to going outside. Staff D further confirmed that if the receptionist is away from the desk, residents do come back into the facility and go to their rooms with their smoking materials.
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 eye medications were labeled with open expiration dates and that expired medications were remov...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure eye medications were labeled with open expiration dates and that expired medications were removed from use on 1 of 3 medication carts and 1 of 2 medication rooms observed (Resident Identifier is #44). Findings include: Observation on 5/10/23 at 8:45 a.m. of the Bay Unit medication room with Staff E (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed 6 packets of Hydrocortisone 1 percent (%) cream with an expiration date of 11/2022 available for use on Bay Unit. Interview on 5/10/23 at 8:45 a.m. with Staff E confirmed the above finding. Observation on 5/10/23 at approximately 9:27 a.m. of the Strawberry Cove Medication Cart revealed the following opened eye medications for Resident #44 without an open date or an open expiration date: Latanoprost Ophthalmic Solution 0.005% Interview on 5/10/23 at approximately 9:27 a.m with Staff A (Registered Nurse) and Staff B (Licened Practical Nurse) confirmed the above findings. Record review on 5/11/23 of Resident #44's physican orders revealed the following: Latanoprost Ophthalmic Solution 0.005%. Instill 1 drop in right eye at bedtime for eye. Start date 1/30/2023. Review on 5/11/23 of Resident #44's Medication Administration Record for May 2023 revealed the resident had recieved Latanoprost Ophthalmic Solution 0.005% daily. Review on 5/11/23 of the manufactuer's instruction on the Latanoprost Ophthalmic Solution 0.005% label revealed the following: Discard after six weeks. Review on 5/11/23 of the facility policy titled, Labeling of Medication and Biologicals last revised 5/3/2022 states: All medications and biologicals used in the facility will be labeled in accordance with current state and federal regulations to facilitate precautions and safe administration of medications .4. Labels for each floor/unit's stock medications must include: c. The expiration date when applicable. 8. Labels for multi-use vials must include: a. The date the vial was initially opened or accessed .
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 observation, interview, and policy review it was determined that the facility failed to clean and disinfect a glucometer after use for 1 out of 2 medication carts observed. Findings include: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review it was determined that the facility failed to clean and disinfect a glucometer after use for 1 out of 2 medication carts observed. Findings include: Observation on 5/10/23 at 9:45 a.m. of the Strawberry Cove medication cart revealed a glucometer in the top right draw with brown dried blood like substance on and around the test strip insertion site. Interview on 5/10/23 at 9:45 a.m. with Staff B (Unit Manger) revealed that the glucometer is to be cleaned after each resident use and confirmed the substance on the meter was a blood-like substance. Review on 5/12/23 of the facilities policy titled Glucometer Disinfection, revised date 08/15/2022, revealed the following: Definition: Disinfection is the process that eliminates many or all pathogenic microorganisms, except bacterial spores, on inanimate objects .Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will ensure blood glucometer will be cleaned and disinfected after each use and according to manufacturer's instructions and for multi-resident use . 4. Glucometer's will be cleaned and disinfected after each use and according to manufacturer's instructions regardless of whether they are intended for single resident or multiple resident use. Review on 5/12/23 at 2:00 p.m. of the manufacturer's recommendations for the blood glucose meters revealed the following: Cleaning and Disinfecting Guidelines: Healthcare professionals should wear gloves and when cleaning the Assure Platinum meter. Wash Hands after taking off gloves. Contact with blood presents a potential infection risk. We suggest cleaning and disinfecting the meter between patient use. Further review revealed that cleaning and disinfection can be done using an EPA-registered disinfectant, germicidal wipe, or bleach solution. Standard: Review on 5/12/23 of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidance, retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/blood-glucose-monitoring.html#:~:text=CDC%20is%20alerting%20all%20persons%20who%20assist%20others,never%20be%20used%20for%20more%20than%20one%20person revealed the following: Whenever possible, blood glucose meters should not be shared. If they must be shared, the device should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per manufacturer's instructions. If the manufacturer does not specify how the device should be cleaned and disinfected then it should not be shared.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in New Hampshire.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Hampshire facilities.
  • • 36% turnover. Below New Hampshire's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
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 Cedar Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Cedar Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates CEDAR HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the New Hampshire average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Cedar Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 7 deficiencies at CEDAR HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 5 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Cedar Healthcare Center?

CEDAR HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 102 certified beds and approximately 84 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PORTSMOUTH, New Hampshire.

How Does Cedar Healthcare Center Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, CEDAR HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (36%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Cedar Healthcare 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 Cedar Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CEDAR HEALTHCARE 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Cedar Healthcare Center Stick Around?

CEDAR HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 36%, 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 Cedar Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

CEDAR HEALTHCARE 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 Cedar Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

CEDAR HEALTHCARE 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.