How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Ledgewood Manor
200 Route 115, Windham, ME 04062 (opens Google Maps) · Cumberland County · (207) 892-2261· 60 certified beds · avg 48 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1993 · 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 →
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 26, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Oct 31, 2019
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.36
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: ★★★☆☆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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Oct 31, 2019 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Oct 31, 2019 · F-0689
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 (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Dec 31, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 33 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. F-0578
The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. F-0655
View all 33 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 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Feb 26, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Feb 26, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Feb 26, 2025 | 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 26, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Feb 26, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 26, 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 |
| Feb 26, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 26, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 26, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 26, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 8, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | 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 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff. · F-0886 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 14, 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 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · F-0947 |
| Jun 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 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | 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 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · F-0567 |
| Jun 14, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. · F-0868 |
| Oct 31, 2019 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Oct 31, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | When a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · F-0661 |
| Oct 31, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · F-0838 |
| Oct 31, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (12 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2022
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 9 | 1 | K ▲ |
| 2022 | 12 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | E |
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 facilityMaine averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.36
Maine average: 4.60
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.71
Maine average: 1.11
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.11
Maine average: 4.16
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Maine avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.36 | 4.60 | 3.95 | bottom 39% in Maine; top 27% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.71 | 1.11 | 0.69 | bottom 6% in Maine; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.11 | 4.16 | 3.50 | top 44% in Maine; top 20% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.52 | 0.73 | 0.48 | bottom 28% in Maine; top 30% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | — | 46.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 40.2 | 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 4.04, RN 0.65, weekend 3.80.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.04 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.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Ledgewood Manor. 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 - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bennett, Edison | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 51% | 02/11/1980 |
| Bennett, Jean | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 49% | 02/11/1980 |
| Bennett, Edison | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/1980 |
| Bennett, Edison | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/29/2025 |
| Bennett, Nathaniel | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/22/2015 |
| Bennett, Nathaniel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/22/2015 |
| Brown, Jessica | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/31/2021 |
| Brown, Jessica | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/31/2021 |
| Cadigan, Catharine | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Cadigan, Catharine | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Preferred Therapy Outpatient Services of Me, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/03/2018 |
| Preferred Therapy Outpatient Services of Me, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/14/2025 |
All 12 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 15 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gorham House | 10.8 mi | Gorham, ME | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Coastal Manor | 11.7 mi | Yarmouth, ME | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Fallbrook Commons | 11.8 mi | Portland, ME | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Brentwood Center for Health & Rehabilitation, LLC | 12.0 mi | Yarmouth, ME | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Barron Center | 12.2 mi | Portland, ME | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Springbrook Center | 12.2 mi | Westbrook, ME | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Sedgewood Commons | 12.3 mi | Falmouth, ME | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Cedars Nursing Care Center | 13.0 mi | Portland, ME | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Seaside Healthcare LLC | 13.6 mi | Portland, ME | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Hawthorne House | 14.4 mi | Freeport, ME | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pinnacle Health & Rehab at South Portland | 16.4 mi | So Portland, ME | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Maine Veterans Home - Scarborough | 17.6 mi | Scarborough, ME | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Cumberland, ME — 17 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Mid Coast Senior Health Center — Brunswick, ME · overall 5/5
- Pine Point Center — Scarborough, ME · overall 2/5
- Piper Shores — Scarborough, ME · overall 5/5
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 205137.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).