116 Houghton Street, Worcester, MA 01604 (opens Google Maps) · Worcester County · (508) 791-5543· 75 certified beds · avg 70 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1990 · 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 →
Part of chain: ELDER SERVICES (6 facilities, chain avg rating 2.2★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · how star ratings work →
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 3, 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 5, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 17 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. F-0880
The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. F-0730
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. F-0656
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 29, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Aug 29, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Aug 29, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · F-0656 |
| Aug 29, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Aug 29, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Aug 29, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 29, 2025 | 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. · F-0842 |
| Oct 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint · F-0604 |
| Jun 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607 |
| Jun 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Jun 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Jan 3, 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 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · F-0656 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 5 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 7 | 0 | F |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $13,095.
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 3, 2024 | Fine | $13,095 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 4.44 | 3.89 | 3.95 | top 17% in Massachusetts; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.42 | 0.65 | 0.69 | bottom 18% in Massachusetts; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.97 | 3.51 | 3.50 | top 19% in Massachusetts; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.21 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 11% in Massachusetts; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.6 | 38.2 | 45.8 | bottom 46% in Massachusetts; top 33% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 60.0 | 42.6 | 42.9 | bottom 19% in Massachusetts; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
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 3.94, RN 0.38, weekend 3.53.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.94 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Blaire House of Worcester. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doyle, Philip | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/1974 |
| Essex Group Incorporated | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/1974 |
| Romano, Brandon | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2008 |
| Romano, Frank | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/1974 |
| Romano, James | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2008 |
| Romano, Katelyn | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2008 |
| Romano, Kyle | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2008 |
| Bandama, Faith | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/28/1991 |
| Bandama, Faith | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/28/1991 |
| Connectone Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2023 |
| Connectone Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2023 |
| Essex Group Management Corp | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/1995 |
| Essex Group Management Corp | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/16/2025 |
| Essex Group Staffing Company | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/31/2007 |
| Jean-Baptiste, Rose | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/03/2023 |
| Jean-Baptiste, Rose | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/03/2023 |
| Picone, Scott | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/26/2002 |
| Picone, Scott | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/26/2002 |
| Romano, Frank | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/1974 |
| Romano, Frank | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/1974 |
Showing 20 of 27 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 7 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Elder Services — 6 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vantage at Worcester LLC | 0.1 mi | Worcester, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Worcester Rehabilitation & Health Care Center | 0.4 mi | Worcester, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| St Francis Rehabilitation & Nursing Center | 0.6 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| St Mary Health Care Center | 1.6 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lutheran Rehabilitation and Skilled Care Center | 1.8 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Christopher House of Worcester | 1.8 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| West Side House LTC Facility | 1.8 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Care One at Millbury | 2.1 mi | Millbury, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Notre Dame Long Term Care Center | 3.0 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Holy Trinity Eastern Orthodox N & R Center | 3.3 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Regalcare at Worcester | 3.4 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Parsons Hill Rehabilitation & Health Care Center | 3.4 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Worcester, MA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225443.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details