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 →
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, isolated · May 29, 2026 · F-0880
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.
Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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 20, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 19 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
J · Immediate jeopardy, 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
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
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
View all 19 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
May 29, 2026
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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
May 29, 2026
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 29, 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. · F-0658
May 29, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760
May 29, 2026
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
May 29, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806
Jun 20, 2025
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
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. · from a complaint · F-0725
Jun 20, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · from a complaint · F-0684
Jun 20, 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. · from a complaint · F-0692
Jun 20, 2025
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. · from a complaint · F-0761
Jun 20, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · from a complaint · F-0770
Jun 20, 2025
C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread
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. · from a complaint · F-0838
Apr 17, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553
Apr 17, 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
Apr 17, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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. · from a complaint · F-0725
Apr 17, 2025
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
Apr 17, 2025
B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582
Jun 27, 2024
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
Jun 27, 2024
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
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 6).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2025
All citations:
11
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2026
All citations:
6
Serious citations (G–L):
1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2024
2
0
D
2025
11
0
F
2026
6
1
J ▲
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.
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
May 29, 2026
Fine
$38,842
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityNew Hampshire averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
3.20
New Hampshire average:
4.11
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.68
New Hampshire average:
0.82
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
2.73
New Hampshire average:
3.67
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
New Hampshire avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
3.20
4.11
3.95
bottom 24% in New Hampshire; bottom 22% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.68
0.82
0.69
bottom 38% in New Hampshire; top 38% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
2.73
3.67
3.50
bottom 14% in New Hampshire; bottom 18% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.33
0.55
0.48
bottom 8% in New Hampshire; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
67.5
44.1
45.8
bottom 6% in New Hampshire; bottom 8% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
61.5
40.9
42.9
bottom 15% in New Hampshire; bottom 20% 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 3.40, RN 0.72, weekend 2.91.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.40 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Mountain Ridge Center, Genesis Healthcare. 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.
All 19 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 Genesis Healthcare — 184 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.
Health inspection rating 1/5 · CMS overall 1/5 · SFF Candidate· Fines (3y): $38,842
Most serious findings on record:
▲ May 29, 2026 (F-0880, Immediate jeopardy, 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.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
☐ "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
☐ "How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
☐ "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the New Hampshire 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 68% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "The ownership record on file lists 19 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
☐ "CMS lists this facility under its Special Focus program — what is being done differently, and by when?"
☐ "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
While you're there, notice:
☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)
Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 305075 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)