MORRISON NURSING HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Morrison Nursing Home in Whitefield, New Hampshire has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about care quality. They rank #67 out of 73 facilities in the state, placing them in the bottom half, and #4 out of 5 in Coos County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. Although the facility's trend is improving, dropping from 15 issues in 2023 to 5 in 2024, there are still serious areas of concern, including a 100% staff turnover rate which is significantly above the state average. They have been fined $73,340, which is higher than 98% of other facilities in New Hampshire, reflecting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents include critical failures in following COVID-19 return-to-work guidelines for staff, allegations of rough treatment towards residents that were not promptly investigated, and inadequate procedures for handling allegations of abuse, which raises serious concerns about resident safety and care quality.
- Trust Score
- F
- In New Hampshire
- #67/73
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 100% turnover. Very high, 52 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $73,340 in fines. Higher than 85% of New Hampshire facilities, suggesting repeated 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
- 25 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
53pts above New Hampshire avg (47%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
52 points above New Hampshire average of 48%
The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record
Dec 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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 medications were a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0813
(Tag F0813)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their policy for labeling and dating resident food items brought in by visitors for 1 of 3 kitchenettes observe...
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 observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement policies for hand hygiene for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers and the use of ap...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff used hair restraints when handling food and failed to label and store food i...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to submit complete and accurate data for Payroll Based Journal for Fiscal Year Quarter 4 (July 1, 2024 - September 30, 2...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
14 deficiencies
2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Staff I (LNA)
Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 ha...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to adequately administer in a way to ensure that when allegations of abuse were identified, that the facility's policies for reporting and inv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure confidentiality of medical records was maintained for 1 of 23 residents (Resident identifier is #2).
Findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Resident #35
Review on 11/17/23 of Resident #35's electronic medical record revealed that Resident #35 had documented inappropriate sexual behaviors with other residents on 7/8/23, 7/20/23, and 9/24/2...
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 interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 5 residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
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 with pressure ulcers had documentation of weekly assessments that contained measurements and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 services to a resident ...
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 indicators of trauma in order to provide trauma informed care for 1 out of 5 residents reviewed for behavio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0710
(Tag F0710)
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 physician was involved in a resident's referral to hospice on 1 of 3 residents reviewed for hospice i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0839
(Tag F0839)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff had the training or experience necessary to identify residents with a history of trauma in order fo...
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
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Staff I (Licensed Nursing Assistant (LNA))
Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported Staff I was very rough during ca...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Staff I (LNA)
Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported Staff I was very rough during care and rude.
Interview on 11...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Staff I (LNA)
Interview on 11/14/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. during a Resident Council meeting Resident #9 and Resident #10 had reported Staff I was very rough during care and rude.
Interview on 11...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL
(L)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow accepted national standards for the return to work guidelines for health care personnel who were positive for...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
5 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 observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to support resident choice to leave the facility for hospitalization for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for choi...
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 obtain and follow physician ord...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident that was prescribed an antibiotic was prescribed the appropriate antibiotic by obtaining a cu...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 3 of the 4 quarterly mee...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to inform residents, resident representatives, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, $73,340 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $73,340 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New Hampshire. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Morrison's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MORRISON NURSING HOME 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 Morrison Staffed?
CMS rates MORRISON NURSING HOME's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 100%, which is 53 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 47%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Morrison?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at MORRISON NURSING HOME during 2022 to 2024. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 19 with potential for harm, and 3 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 Morrison?
MORRISON NURSING HOME is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 57 certified beds and approximately 47 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WHITEFIELD, New Hampshire.
How Does Morrison Compare to Other New Hampshire Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Hampshire, MORRISON NURSING HOME's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (100%) is significantly higher than the state average of 47%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Morrison?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Morrison Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MORRISON NURSING HOME has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Morrison Stick Around?
Staff turnover at MORRISON NURSING HOME is high. At 100%, the facility is 53 percentage points above the New Hampshire average of 47%. 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 Morrison Ever Fined?
MORRISON NURSING HOME has been fined $73,340 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the New Hampshire average of $33,812. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Morrison on Any Federal Watch List?
MORRISON NURSING HOME is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.