9 Haywood Avenue, Rutland, VT 05701 (opens Google Maps) · Rutland County · (802) 775-0007· 158 certified beds · avg 131 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 1970 · 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: GENESIS HEALTHCARE (184 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 8, 2026 · 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: May 15, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 8, 2026 · F-0726 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Why it matters: Undertrained caregivers are more likely to miss warning signs and make care mistakes.
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: May 15, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 9, 2025 · 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: Oct 10, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 5, 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: May 10, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 31 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. F-0583
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 3, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Jun 3, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 3, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2026 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 8, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726 |
| Sep 9, 2025 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | 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 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Apr 11, 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 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557 |
| Apr 11, 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 |
| Apr 11, 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 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 31, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Sep 18, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0582 |
| Apr 5, 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 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | 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 |
| Apr 5, 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 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | 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 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · F-0744 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | 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 |
| Apr 5, 2023 | 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 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 4).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 9 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 14 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 2 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 6 | 2 | G ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
3 fines totaling $40,350.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2026 | Fine | $13,065 |
| Apr 8, 2026 | Fine | $17,665 |
| Sep 9, 2025 | Fine | $9,620 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Vermont avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.61 | 4.34 | 3.95 | bottom 16% in Vermont; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.61 | 0.82 | 0.69 | bottom 26% in Vermont; top 47% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.26 | 3.76 | 3.50 | bottom 19% in Vermont; bottom 45% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.45 | 0.52 | 0.48 | bottom 42% in Vermont; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 53.6 | 55.4 | 45.8 | top 32% in Vermont; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 44.8 | 39.9 | 42.9 | bottom 39% in Vermont; bottom 44% 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 3.73, RN 0.63, weekend 3.36.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.73 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Mountain View Center Genesis Healthcare. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fc-Gen Operations Investment LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/02/2015 |
| Gen Operations I LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/02/2015 |
| Gen Operations II LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/02/2015 |
| Genesis Healthcare INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/02/2015 |
| Genesis Healthcare LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/02/2015 |
| Genesis Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/02/2015 |
| Genesis Operations LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 03/01/2009 |
| Genesis VT Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 03/01/2009 |
| GHC Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 04/01/2011 |
| Sun Healthcare Group INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/02/2015 |
| Whitman, Arnold | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/02/2015 |
| Berg, Michael | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/02/2015 |
| Isabelle, Teresa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/21/2019 |
| Isabelle, Teresa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/31/2025 |
| Sobel, Eitan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2020 |
| Sobel, Eitan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/31/2025 |
All 16 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 183 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Pines at Rutland Center for Nursing & Rehabili | 0.3 mi | Rutland, VT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Rutland Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center | 1.4 mi | Rutland, VT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Gill Odd Fellows Home of Vermont | 19.0 mi | Ludlow, VT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 475012.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details