Massachusetts ›North Attleboro

Madonna Manor Nursing Home

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

85 North Washington Street, North Attleboro, MA 02760 (opens Google Maps) · Bristol County · (508) 699-2740· 129 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: DIOCESAN HEALTH FACILITIES (5 facilities, chain avg rating 3.6★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 11, 2025
5
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 21, 2024
$43,011
Fines, last 3 years
5.02
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: 4/5 · 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 · Aug 21, 2024 · F-0580

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.

Why it matters: A family could learn about a serious injury or decline days later, after the chance to act has passed.

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 10, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 21, 2024 · F-0692

The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.

Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.

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 10, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 6, 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 27, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 6, 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 27, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 19, 2023 · 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 (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: Aug 16, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 29 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  2. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. F-0804

  3. 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

View all 29 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff. · F-0840
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 2, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Aug 21, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 21, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Aug 21, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565
Aug 21, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585
Aug 21, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
Aug 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 21, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 28, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Sep 6, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 6, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Jul 19, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Jul 19, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Jul 19, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jul 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Jul 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jul 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685
Jul 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688
Jul 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jul 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Jul 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 6).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023133G ▲
2024102G ▲
202560D

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

1 fine totaling $43,011.

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.

DateTypeAmount / length
Aug 21, 2024Fine$43,011

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

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: 5.02
Massachusetts average: 3.89
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.98
Massachusetts average: 0.65
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.67
Massachusetts average: 3.51
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityMassachusetts avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.023.893.95top 8% in Massachusetts; top 13% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.980.650.69top 9% in Massachusetts; top 17% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.673.513.50top 8% in Massachusetts; top 10% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.550.460.48top 24% in Massachusetts; top 28% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)14.738.245.8top 2% in Massachusetts; top 1% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)22.242.642.9top 12% in Massachusetts; top 17% 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 4.03, RN 0.79, weekend 3.75.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.03 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Madonna Manor Nursing Home. 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 →

Non profit - Church related

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Da Cunha, EdgarIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/24/2014
Mayer, HarryIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mitchell, LauraIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2020
Roque, JoanneIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2019
Wheaton, KurtIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/18/2021

All 5 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 Diocesan Health Facilities — 5 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.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
  • "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
  • "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "For services you don't staff in-house, which outside professionals do you contract with?"

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?"
  • "CMS reports 15% 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 88 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Garden Place Healthcare3.8 miAttleboro, MA★★☆☆☆2/5
Mount St Rita Health Centre4.3 miCumberland, RI★★☆☆☆2/5
Life Care Center of Attleboro5.4 miAttleboro, MA★★★★★5/5
Alliance Health at Maples5.5 miWrentham, MA★★★☆☆3/5
Grandview Center6.3 miCumberland, RI★★★★★4/5
Harris Health Care Center North6.8 miCentral Falls, RI★☆☆☆☆1/5
Serenity Hill Nursing Center7.0 miWrentham, MA★☆☆☆☆1/5
The Gardens at Cedarwood7.4 miFranklin, MA★★☆☆☆2/5
Mansion Nursing and Rehab Center7.6 miCentral Falls, RI★★☆☆☆2/5
Holiday Operator, LLC DBA Holiday Rehabilitation a7.9 miManville, RI★★☆☆☆2/5
Woonsocket Health Center8.1 miWoonsocket, RI★★★★☆4/5
Adviniacare Oakland Grove LLC8.2 miWoonsocket, RI★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Bristol, MA — 28 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.

All facilities in North Attleboro →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225475.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details