3 Vision Drive, Natick, MA 01760 (opens Google Maps) · Middlesex County · (617) 913-6704· 53 certified beds · avg 48 residents/day · certified since Jun 2, 1997 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 6, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 17, 2024
$10,517
Fines, last 3 years
4.04
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 17, 2024 · F-0656 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Feb 14, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 17, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Feb 14, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 9 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. F-0761
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaintF-0557
B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. F-0641
View all 9 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
Date
Severity
What the facility was cited for
Apr 6, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
Sep 16, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557
Jan 7, 2025
B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Jan 7, 2025
B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
Jun 4, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Jan 17, 2024
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656
Jan 17, 2024
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Nov 16, 2023
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · F-0727
Nov 16, 2023
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 1).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2024
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
2
2025
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2026
All citations:
1
Serious citations (G–L):
0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2023
2
0
F
2024
3
2
G ▲
2025
3
0
D
2026
1
0
D
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Jan 17, 2024
Fine
$10,517
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityMassachusetts averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
4.04
Massachusetts average:
3.89
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.34
Massachusetts average:
0.65
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
3.71
Massachusetts average:
3.51
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
Massachusetts avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
4.04
3.89
3.95
top 31% in Massachusetts; top 38% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.34
0.65
0.69
bottom 8% in Massachusetts; bottom 14% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
3.71
3.51
3.50
top 28% in Massachusetts; top 33% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.20
0.46
0.48
bottom 9% in Massachusetts; bottom 12% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
32.5
38.2
45.8
top 35% in Massachusetts; top 19% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
—
42.6
42.9
—
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.71, RN 0.31, weekend 3.41.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.71 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
CMS records place this facility in Middlesex, MA — 72 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.