John Clarke Senior Living

600 Valley Road, Middletown, RI 02842 (401) 846-0743
Non profit - Corporation 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
68/100
#22 of 72 in RI
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

John Clarke Senior Living has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not without concerns. It ranks #22 out of 72 nursing homes in Rhode Island, placing it in the top half and #1 out of 6 facilities in Newport County, suggesting it is the best local option. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 2 in 2024 to 1 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 32%, which is lower than the state average of 41%. There have been no fines, which is a positive sign, and the facility has more RN coverage than 95% of others in the state, enhancing care quality. However, there are some significant weaknesses. A critical incident occurred where a resident eloped from the facility twice and fell in an unsecured area, leading to a hospital transfer. Additionally, the facility failed to provide proper care for a resident with an indwelling catheter, and there were concerns about sanitation related to an ice machine, which had not been cleaned as scheduled. Overall, while John Clarke Senior Living has strengths in staffing and safety, families should be aware of the critical incident and other care concerns when considering this facility.

Trust Score
C+
68/100
In Rhode Island
#22/72
Top 30%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
32% turnover. Near Rhode Island's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Rhode Island facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 66 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Rhode Island nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 3 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (32%)

    16 points below Rhode Island average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 32%

14pts below Rhode Island avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 3 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Sept 2025 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide ad...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for one of one resident reviewed, Resident ID #1. This resident successfully eloped from the facility on two separate occasions and later entered an unsecured area within the facility, where they sustained a fall that required a hospital transfer for evaluation.Findings are as follows:Review of a community reported complaint submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Health on 9/21/2025 alleges that Resident ID #1 has eloped out of the facility multiple times, and indicated the resident is not appropriate for the facility.Review of an undated facility policy titled, Elopement of Resident, states in part, .All residents will be assessed for potential elopement risk at admission and with a significant change in status.For residents identified as at risk, an interdisciplinary elopement prevention care plan will be developed.Staff witnessing a confused resident or an identified elopement risk resident attempting to leave the Center will intervene as appropriate to redirect the resident to a safe area and prevent elopement.Record review revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in March of 2025, with a diagnosis including, but not limited to, dementia.Review of a Significant Change Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3 out of 15, indicating the resident has severely impaired cognition. Further review revealed the resident displayed wandering behaviors, one to three days, during the seven-day look back period and utilized a wander guard (a device designed to prevent individuals from wandering away by alerting caregivers when a resident breaches a designated perimeter) daily. Review of a Wandering Assessment dated 7/20/2025 revealed a score of 11, indicating s/he is at high risk for wandering. Record review failed to reveal evidence that an Elopement Assessment was completed, after the resident's significant change in status on 7/18/2025, per the facility policy.Review of a care plan focus area initiated on 6/16/2025 revealed the resident has exit seeking behaviors due to his/her diagnosis of dementia. Interventions include, distract resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, food, or conversation and to utilize a wander guard, as ordered. Record review revealed the following physician's orders dated 6/14/2025:- Check functional status of wander guard to right wrist, each shift- Check placement of wander guard on right wrist, each shiftReview of a progress note dated 8/26/2025 revealed the resident successfully eloped from the facility and was found by nursing staff outside of the front door. Further review states, additional safety measures implemented.Record review failed to reveal evidence that additional safety measures were identified and implemented, following the resident's successful elopement on 8/26/2025. Record review revealed a progress note dated 9/20/2025, authored by Registered Nurse (RN), Staff A, which states, at 17:25 [5:25 PM] resident was found by RN outside of building in facility parking lot. Wander guards functioning properly on wheelchair and wrist, wander guard system did not activate. On call supervisor notified and made aware.Record review failed to reveal evidence that additional safety measures were identified and implemented, following the resident's successful elopement on 9/20/2025. Record review revealed a progress note dated 9/21/2025, one day after the resident's successful elopement, which states in part, Resident unable to be located, CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] found resident lying on the floor in dark therapy room on [his/her] back with difficulty to arouse. Resident responded yes when RN called out [his/her] name multiple times in a delayed response. Resident unable to verbalize any pain and gave a blank stare when asked questions. Resident lethargic on assessment, then became alert with 0 orientation. able to move all 4 [extremities] unable to grasp hands to determine hand strength, pupils unequal at baseline with sluggish response to light accommodation .On call provider.notified with new orders to send resident to [NAME] ED [Emergency Department] for treatment and evaluation via EMS [Emergency Medical Services] .Resident transferred off therapy room floor onto stretcher via EMS personnel.Record review revealed the resident retuned to the facility on 9/22/2025 with a diagnosis of a urinary tract infection. During a surveyor observation on 9/24/2025 at 9:29 AM, Resident ID #1 was noted to have a wander guard on his/her right wrist and 2 additional wander guards located on the back of his/her wheelchair. Record review failed to reveal evidence of a physician's orders to check for functionality or placement of the two wander guards located on the resident's wheelchair. During surveyor interviews on 9/24/2025 at 10:39 AM and 12:35 PM, with RN, Staff A, she indicated that she was one of the nurses on duty on 9/20/2025. She acknowledged that Resident ID #1 successfully eloped from the facility on 9/20/2025, through the main entrance door, and was found in the parking lot, in his/her wheelchair. She revealed that when she was unable to locate the resident in the facility and initiated a facility search. She indicated that RN, Staff B found the resident outside in the parking lot. She further revealed that based on surveillance footage, the resident eloped after a visitor had opened the door the resident was able to self-propel outside. She revealed that there is a wander guard system at the front door but indicated the alarm did not go off when the resident exited the facility. Additionally, she revealed that Resident ID #1 frequently wanders around the facility, indicating that staff are constantly questioning his/her whereabouts. Furthermore, she revealed that the resident was found the next day on 9/21/2025, lying on the floor of the therapy room, where s/he should not have been able to enter, indicating the room should have been locked. She further revealed that the resident has previously been found in other rooms, such as a storage room due to his/her wandering behaviors. During a surveyor interview on 9/24/2025 at 10:53 AM, with RN, Staff B, she indicated that she was one of the nurses on duty on 9/20/2025. She revealed that on 9/20/2025 at approximately 5:25 PM, she saw Resident ID #1 self-propelling towards the front doors and indicated that she was following behind him/her. She further revealed that she had stopped to assist another resident, by the time she approached the front doors she observed Resident ID #1 outside in the parking lot with another resident, who was holding his/her wheelchair to prevent the resident from self-propelling further into the parking lot. Additionally, she revealed that Resident ID #1 has previously eloped from the facility. Furthermore, she revealed that the wander guard alarm did not alert when the resident left the faciity on 9/20/2025. Surveyor observation on 9/24/2025 of the facility parking lot reveals, the flat parking lot slopes toward a hill that descends to a highly traveled main road and ultimately ending at a large body of water. During surveyor interviews on 9/24/2025 at 9:46 AM with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) and the Administrator, they acknowledged that Resident ID #1 successfully eloped from the facility on 8/26/2025 and 9/20/2025. During a surveyor interview on 9/24/2025 at 10:24 AM, with the DNS, she revealed that after the resident's successful elopement on 9/20/2025 and after the incident on 9/21/2025 where the resident was found in the therapy room, the social worker was attempting to find the resident placement on a secured unit at another facility, however, she was unable to provide evidence that any additional interventions or safety measures were in place to prevent the resident from wandering into areas of the facility where s/he should not be and eloping again while s/he was still a resident at the facility. A surveyor observation on 9/24/2025 at 11:19 AM, of the surveillance footage from 9/20/2025, revealed Resident ID #1 self-propelled in his/her wheelchair to the front door and was noted to be sitting at the front door, without the doors opening. Further review revealed a visitor entered the facility, causing the main doors to open, the resident was then able to self-propel outside and elope from the facility. Additionally, no staff were present in the video, when the resident successfully eloped from the facility. During a surveyor interview on 9/24/2025 at 12:23 PM, with the Administrator and DNS, the Administrator acknowledged that the wander guard system did not alarm on 9/20/2025, when the resident exited through the front door perimeter. The Administrator further revealed that she had placed one of the two wander guards on the back of the resident's wheelchair but was unable to recall when she had placed it. Additionally, they were unable to provide evidence that Resident ID #1 received adequate supervision to prevent him/her from eloping from the facility, twice, once on 8/26/2025 and again on 9/20/2025, also they failed to prevent him/her from wandering into an unsecured area of the facility on 9/21/2025.The facility failed to reassess the resident's risk for elopement following a significant change in condition and did not implement adequate supervision interventions. As a result, a cognitively impaired resident previously identified as a wander risk was able to exit the facility through the main doors on two occasions, 8/26/2025 and 9/20/2025. During the second incident, the resident was found in the parking lot, having been stopped by another resident. The facility's continued failure to provide adequate supervision led to the resident being found on the floor of the therapy room on 9/21/2025, following an unwitnessed fall one day after the most recent elopement. This incident required the resident to be transferred to the hospital for further evaluation. These systemic failures placed Resident ID #1 at risk for more than minimal harm, serious injury, or death.
Mar 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed with an indwelling catheter (a f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed with an indwelling catheter (a flexible tube that collects urine from the bladder and leads to a drainage bag), Resident ID #30. Findings are as follows: According to Brunner & Suddarth's Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing Volume 2, 10th Edition, page 252 states the usual daily urine volume in the adult is 1-2 Liters or 1000-2000 cubic centimeters (cc). According to Brunner & Suddarth's Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing Volume 2, 10th Edition, page 1282 states, For patients with indwelling catheters, the nurse assesses the drainage system to ensure that it provides adequate urinary drainage. The color, odor, and volume of urine are also monitored. An accurate record of fluid intake and urine output provides essential information about the adequacy of renal function and urinary drainage. According to Brunner & Suddarth's Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing Volume 2, 10th Edition, page 1284 states, To reduce the risk of bacterial proliferation [rapid increase in numbers] empty the collection bag at least every 8 hours through the drainage spout - more frequently if there is a large volume of urine. Record review revealed that the resident was readmitted to the facility in March of 2024 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, influenza and Alzheimer's disease. Review of a physician's order dated 3/2/2024 revealed the resident has a foley catheter for urinary retention. Review of the resident's care plan revealed a focus that states in part, Foley Catheter r/t [related to] urinary retention . Additional review revealed an intervention including, but not limited to, Foley Catheter Care QS [every shift] - Empty Bag and record amount. Record review revealed the following documented urine output: 3/1/2024 no output is documented. 3/2/2024 at 8:48 PM - 250 cc 3/3/2024 at 12:00 PM - 100 cc and at 9:18 PM - 200 cc 3/4/2024 at 6:59 AM - 300 cc 3/5/2024 at 9:13 PM - 100 cc During a surveyor interview on 3/6/2024 at 11:26 AM with Registered Nurse, Staff A, in the presence of the Director of Nursing Services (DNS), she acknowledged that the resident's urinary output was not documented every shift and that she was unsure what the resident's output was every day. Additionally, she revealed that the physician was not notified regarding minimal output due to staff being unaware of the resident's accurate urine output. During a surveyor interview on 3/6/2024 at 12:31 PM with the DNS, she acknowledged that the resident's output was not recorded accurately for the above dates. Additionally, the DNS was unable to provide evidence that the facility provided appropriate treatment and services for a resident with a urinary catheter including emptying and documenting the urinary output to assess for adequacy of renal function.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment for residents, staff and the public relative to 1 o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment for residents, staff and the public relative to 1 of 2 ice machines. Findings are as follows: During a surveyor observation on 3/4/2024 at 8:45 AM of the main kitchen ice machine, revealed black matter on the inside shield of the ice dispenser. Additionally, the left upper front quarter of the shield revealed a linear pattern of black spots. During a surveyor interview immediately following the above observation with the Kitchen Supervisor, Staff B, he acknowledged the above-mentioned black matter. Additionally, he was unable to provide evidence of the facility-initiated cleaning schedule. Record review of a document titled; Ice Machine Cleaning Schedule indicated a monthly cleaning schedule is conducted on the 10th day of each month. Further, it revealed the last time the ice machine was cleaned was 2/10/2024. Record review of the ice machine service documents from an outside company, revealed the ice machine was cleaned and sanitized every 6 months, with the most recent cleaning completed on 12/13/2023. During a surveyor observation and simultaneous interview on 3/5/2024 at approximately 9:15 AM with the Food Service Director, he acknowledged the presence of the above-mentioned black matter and indicated that the ice machine needed to be emptied and cleaned that 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?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Rhode Island facilities.
  • • 32% turnover. Below Rhode Island's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 3 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 68/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is John Clarke Senior Living's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns John Clarke Senior Living an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Rhode Island, 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 John Clarke Senior Living Staffed?

CMS rates John Clarke Senior Living's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the Rhode Island average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at John Clarke Senior Living?

State health inspectors documented 3 deficiencies at John Clarke Senior Living during 2024 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 2 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates John Clarke Senior Living?

John Clarke Senior Living 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 60 certified beds and approximately 54 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Middletown, Rhode Island.

How Does John Clarke Senior Living Compare to Other Rhode Island Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Rhode Island, John Clarke Senior Living's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting John Clarke Senior Living?

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?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is John Clarke Senior Living Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, John Clarke Senior Living 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 Rhode Island. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at John Clarke Senior Living Stick Around?

John Clarke Senior Living has a staff turnover rate of 32%, which is about average for Rhode Island 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 John Clarke Senior Living Ever Fined?

John Clarke Senior Living 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 John Clarke Senior Living on Any Federal Watch List?

John Clarke Senior Living 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.