44 New Lombard Road, Chicopee, MA 01020 (opens Google Maps) · Hampden County · (413) 592-7738· 68 certified beds · avg 64 residents/day · certified since Aug 26, 1991 · 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 →
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 · Sep 28, 2023 · 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: Sep 29, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 28, 2023 · 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: Sep 29, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 27 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. F-0580
The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. F-0637
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Feb 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637 |
| Feb 18, 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 |
| Feb 18, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Feb 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · F-0849 |
| Feb 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Feb 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Feb 18, 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 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care. · F-0710 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). · F-0742 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Feb 28, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Sep 28, 2023 | ▲ 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 |
| Sep 28, 2023 | ▲ 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 |
| Sep 14, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Sep 14, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Sep 14, 2022 | 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 |
| Sep 14, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Sep 14, 2022 | 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 |
| Sep 14, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (10 → 9).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 2 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 9 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $7,901.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2023 | Fine | $7,901 |
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) | 3.23 | 3.89 | 3.95 | bottom 15% in Massachusetts; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.26 | 0.65 | 0.69 | bottom 2% in Massachusetts; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.05 | 3.51 | 3.50 | bottom 25% in Massachusetts; bottom 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.19 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 7% in Massachusetts; bottom 10% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 32.1 | 38.2 | 45.8 | top 34% in Massachusetts; top 18% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 20.0 | 42.6 | 42.9 | top 8% in Massachusetts; top 13% 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 3.55, RN 0.28, weekend 3.36.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.55 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Chicopee Rehabilitation and Nursing. 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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaczynski, Kevin | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/29/2024 |
| Kaczynski, Kevin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/29/2024 |
| Kaczynski, Kevin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2025 |
| Steinberg, Gerald | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Steinberg, Gerald | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/09/2025 |
All 5 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loomis Lakeside at Reeds Landing | 3.7 mi | Springfield, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| South Hadley Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 4.3 mi | South Hadley, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Mont Marie Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center | 4.7 mi | Holyoke, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Vantage at West Springfield LLC | 4.7 mi | West Springfield, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Renaissance Manor on Cabot | 4.7 mi | Holyoke, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Regalcare at Holyoke | 4.8 mi | Holyoke, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Mission Care at Holyoke | 4.8 mi | Holyoke, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Mary's Meadow at Providence Place | 4.8 mi | Holyoke, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Life Care Center of Wilbraham | 5.0 mi | Wilbraham, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sixteen Acres Health and Rehabilitation Center LLC | 5.3 mi | Springfield, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Massachusetts Veterans Home at Holyoke | 5.4 mi | Holyoke, MA | —/5 | ||
| Day Brook Village Senior Living | 5.9 mi | Holyoke, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Hampden, MA — 26 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 225539.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details