Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerns about the quality of care. Ranking #14 out of 33 facilities in Vermont places it in the top half, and it is the only option in Addison County. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 2 in 2023 to 4 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, earning 4 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 47%, which is significantly below the state average, suggesting that many staff members remain in their roles. While the facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive sign, serious incidents were noted, such as failing to provide adequate behavioral care for a resident, leading to an improper discharge that did not respect the resident's rights. Overall, while there are some strengths, such as good staffing, families should be aware of the concerning trends and specific incidents when considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Vermont
- #14/33
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 47% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Vermont facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 57 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Vermont. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
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
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Vermont average (2.8)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Vermont avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Jun 2024
4 deficiencies
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 upon interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services according to accepted standards of clin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive trau...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each eligible resident receives the COVID-19 vaccine fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food safety by leaving a used ice scoop in the ice m...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to include residents, to the extent practicable, in their care plan mee...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the screening for abuse was completed according to their policy for 1 of 5 employees reviewed (Employee #1). Findings include:
Review...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
6 deficiencies
4 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
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure a resident's discharge was completely assessed, evaluated, and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Safe Transfer
(Tag F0626)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to establish a protocol on permitting resident to return to the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop individualized interventions related to a resident's...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Deficiency F0741
(Tag F0741)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient staff who have the training to address be...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a written bed-hold notice upon transfer for Resident #1. Findings include:
Record review reveals that Resident #1 was trans...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain complete revisions of resident care plan records for 1 of 2 sampled residents [Resident #1] and have care plans readily acc...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Per record review it was noted on 4/11/22 resident #63 repeatedly struck resident #8 with a cloth clothing protector (2 layers of cloth one being water repellant 18x31 with a metal snap closure). N...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review the facility failed to revise the plan of care to include implemented f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and record review the facility failed to provide appropriate and sufficient supervision to Resident #65 to prevent an avoidable accident for 1 of 5 residents in the sample (re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that PRN (as needed) orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days, or if the prescribing provider believes that it is ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on staff interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that 1 resident in the sample (Resident #7) was free from significant medication errors. Findings include:
Per record review Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents were served meals at a safe temperature. Findings include:
During observation on the Memory Care U...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3. Per record review, Residents #61, #41, #44, #28, and #14 did not have BIMS (brief interview of mental status) assessments performed as required for their most recent MDS (minimum data set) assessme...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interview and record review, the facility failed to prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety regarding monitoring the tempera...
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 fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Vermont facilities.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 4 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Vermont, this rating places the facility higher than 99% 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 Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab Staffed?
CMS rates Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 47%, compared to the Vermont average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab during 2022 to 2024. These included: 4 that caused actual resident harm and 16 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab?
Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab 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 98 certified beds and approximately 94 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Middlebury, Vermont.
How Does Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab Compare to Other Vermont Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Vermont, Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (47%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab?
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 Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab 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 #1 of 100 nursing homes in Vermont. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab Stick Around?
Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab has a staff turnover rate of 47%, which is about average for Vermont 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 Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab Ever Fined?
Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab 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 Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?
Helen Porter Healthcare & Rehab 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.