How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Medford Rehabilitation and Nursing Center
300 Winthrop Street, Medford, MA 02155 (opens Google Maps) · Middlesex County · (781) 391-1783· 142 certified beds · avg 129 residents/day · certified since Mar 8, 1989 · 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: PERSONAL HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT (21 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 1, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent May 25, 2023
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.03
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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 25, 2023 · F-0655
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 25, 2023 · F-0655
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.
Why it matters: In the critical first days, staff may not know a new resident's medications, diet, or fall risks.
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: Jun 26, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 25, 2023 · 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 · May 25, 2023 · 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: Jun 26, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 25, 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 25, 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: Jun 26, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 37 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. F-0658
The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. F-0759
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
View all 37 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 1, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Aug 1, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 1, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 1, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 1, 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 |
| Aug 1, 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 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost. · F-0572 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · F-0728 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 12, 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. · F-0604 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jul 12, 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 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 12, 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 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | 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 |
| May 25, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 25, 2023 | ▲ 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 |
| May 25, 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. · F-0689 |
| May 25, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| May 25, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 25, 2023 | 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 |
| May 25, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| May 25, 2023 | 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. · F-0604 |
| May 25, 2023 | 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 |
| May 25, 2023 | 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 |
| May 25, 2023 | 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 |
| May 25, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| May 25, 2023 | 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 |
| May 25, 2023 | 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 |
| May 25, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| May 25, 2023 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 8).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2024
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 8
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 16 | 3 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 13 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 8 | 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 facilityMassachusetts averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.03
Massachusetts average: 3.89
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.53
Massachusetts average: 0.65
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.70
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) | 4.03 | 3.89 | 3.95 | top 32% in Massachusetts; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.69 | bottom 37% in Massachusetts; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.70 | 3.51 | 3.50 | top 28% in Massachusetts; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.14 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 2% in Massachusetts; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 43.0 | 38.2 | 45.8 | bottom 30% in Massachusetts; top 44% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 27.8 | 42.6 | 42.9 | top 23% in Massachusetts; top 25% 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 3.42, RN 0.45, weekend 3.14.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.42 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Medford Rehabilitation and Nursing 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arb II Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 15% | 12/31/2021 |
| Cartay Holdings, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 25% | 11/07/2011 |
| Ebz II Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 35% | 12/31/2021 |
| Nedlaw II Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 25% | 12/31/2021 |
| Aweh, Nelson | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Aweh, Nelson | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/26/2025 |
| Barth, Alexander | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2012 |
| Cook, Steven | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/06/2020 |
| Cook, Steven | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2020 |
| MRNC Realty LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/29/2025 |
| Walden, Yehudah | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/07/2011 |
| Zagelbaum, Ephraim | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/07/2011 |
All 12 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 Personal Healthcare Management — 21 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.
- Rehabilitation & Nursing Center at Everett (the) — Everett, MA · overall 3/5
- Alpine Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Little Falls, NY · overall 3/5
- Auburn Rehabilitation & Nursing Center — Auburn, NY · overall 2/5
- Delhi Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Delhi, NY · overall 2/5
- Dunkirk Rehabilitation & Nursing Center — Dunkirk, NY · overall 5/5
- Eden Rehabilitation Nursing Center — Eden, NY · overall 5/5
- Ghent Rehabilitation & Nursing Center — Ghent, NY · overall 2/5
- Gowanda Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Gowanda, NY · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 20 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
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 does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "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?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
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 43% 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 140 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regalcare at Courtyard-Medford | 0.6 mi | Medford, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Regalcare at Glen Ridge | 1.6 mi | Medford, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Life Care Center of Stoneham | 2.5 mi | Stoneham, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Winchester Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 2.6 mi | Winchester, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Aberjona Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 2.6 mi | Winchester, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Dexter House Healthcare | 2.7 mi | Malden, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Neville Center at Fresh Pond for Nursing & Rehab | 2.7 mi | Cambridge, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Sancta Maria Nursing Facility | 2.9 mi | Cambridge, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Park Avenue Health Center | 3.1 mi | Arlington, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Melrose Healthcare | 3.3 mi | Melrose, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Cambridge Rehabilitation & Nursing Center | 3.6 mi | Cambridge, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Elmhurst Healthcare (the) | 3.8 mi | Melrose, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Middlesex, MA — 72 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- New England Pediatric Care — North Billerica, MA · overall 5/5
- Northwood Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center — Lowell, MA · overall 1/5
- Oak Knoll Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Framingham, MA · overall 3/5
- Oc Reading Center LLC — Reading, MA · overall 1/5
- Palm Springs Post Acute — Chelmsford, MA · overall 2/5
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 225339.