How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
John Scott House Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
233 Middle Street, Braintree, MA 02184 (opens Google Maps) · Norfolk County · (781) 843-1860· 138 certified beds · avg 113 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · 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: BANECARE MANAGEMENT (7 facilities, chain avg rating 4.0★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 2, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Dec 30, 2022
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.77
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 30, 2022 · F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 30, 2022 · F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
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 6, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 30, 2022 · F-0697
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 30, 2022 · F-0697
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.
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 6, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 24 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. · from a complaint F-0580
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint F-0658
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. F-0584
View all 24 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Jan 15, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Apr 2, 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 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · F-0712 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have firmly secured handrails on both sides of its hallways. · F-0924 |
| Jul 18, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Apr 30, 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 |
| Apr 30, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · F-0699 |
| Apr 30, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | 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 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | 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 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | 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 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Dec 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2024
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 12 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 2 | 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMassachusetts averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.77
Massachusetts average: 3.89
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.77
Massachusetts average: 0.65
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.37
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) | 3.77 | 3.89 | 3.95 | top 47% in Massachusetts; top 50% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.77 | 0.65 | 0.69 | top 20% in Massachusetts; top 30% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.37 | 3.51 | 3.50 | bottom 49% in Massachusetts; top 49% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 29% in Massachusetts; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 31.4 | 38.2 | 45.8 | top 32% in Massachusetts; top 17% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 42.9 | 42.6 | 42.9 | bottom 49% in Massachusetts; bottom 49% 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 3.65, RN 0.75, weekend 3.26.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.65 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for John Scott House Nursing & Rehabilitation Center. 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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morris Health Management LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 01/28/2022 |
| Bane Care Management LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2016 |
| Faria, Marie | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/28/2022 |
All 3 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Banecare Management — 7 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.
- Ledgewood Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Beverly, MA · overall 4/5
- Seacoast Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Gloucester, MA · overall 3/5
- Bay Path at Duxbury Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr — Duxbury, MA · overall 5/5
- Craneville Rehabilitation and Skilled Care Center — Dalton, MA · overall 4/5
- Hancock Park Rehabiliation and Nursing Center — Quincy, MA · overall 3/5
- Harbor House Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Hingham, MA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How often does the attending doctor physically see each resident, and how is that documented?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Massachusetts midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 31% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 108 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Royal Braintree Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 1.0 mi | Braintree, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Regalcare at Quincy | 1.4 mi | Quincy, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Affinity Healthcare | 1.5 mi | Braintree, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pope Nursing Home | 1.6 mi | Weymouth, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Alliance Health at Braintree | 1.7 mi | Braintree, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Hancock Park Rehabiliation and Nursing Center | 1.9 mi | Quincy, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| South Cove Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 2.2 mi | Quincy, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Care One at Weymouth | 2.9 mi | Weymouth, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Linden Ponds | 4.4 mi | Hingham, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Dwyer Home | 4.7 mi | Weymouth, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Harbor House Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 4.9 mi | Hingham, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Queen Anne Nursing Home, INC | 5.3 mi | Hingham, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Norfolk, MA — 33 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Medway Country Manor Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitat — Medway, MA · overall —/5SFF
- Newbridge on the Charles Skilled Nursing Facility — Dedham, MA · overall 5/5
- Norwood Healthcare — Norwood, MA · overall 1/5SFF
- Premier Healthcare at Harrington House — Walpole, MA · overall 2/5
- Serenity Hill Nursing Center — Wrentham, MA · overall 1/5
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 225054.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).