Serenity Hill Nursing Center

Name: Serenity Hill Nursing Center
Address: 655 DEDHAM ST, Wrentham, MA, 02093, US
Telephone: 5083843400

655 Dedham St, Wrentham, MA 02093 · Norfolk County · 44 certified beds · avg 36 residents/day · certified since Oct 1, 1999

1/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

4.78

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (38)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Mar 3, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Mar 3, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not allow a resident's chosen representative — often a family member or someone with power of attorney — to exercise the resident's rights on their behalf. When a resident can't speak for themselves, their representative steps into that role.
Mar 3, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Mar 3, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 3, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Mar 3, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Mar 3, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Mar 3, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Mar 3, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.
Mar 3, 2026	C · Minimal risk, facility-wide	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.
Mar 3, 2026	B · Minimal risk, repeated	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.
Apr 29, 2025	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Apr 29, 2025	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.
Apr 29, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Apr 29, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 29, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 29, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 29, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Apr 29, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 29, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Apr 29, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 29, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 29, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 29, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 29, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 29, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 29, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Apr 29, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
May 14, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
May 14, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
May 14, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
May 14, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not allow a resident's chosen representative — often a family member or someone with power of attorney — to exercise the resident's rights on their behalf. When a resident can't speak for themselves, their representative steps into that role.
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (17 → 11).

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2024	10	F
2025	17	F
2026	11	F

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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

Measure	This facility	Massachusetts avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	4.78	3.89	3.95	top 11% in Massachusetts; top 17% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.47	0.65	0.69	bottom 26% in Massachusetts; bottom 34% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	4.58	3.51	3.50	top 9% in Massachusetts; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.34	0.46	0.48	bottom 36% in Massachusetts; bottom 41% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	0.0	38.2	45.8	—
RN turnover (%)	0.0	42.6	42.9	—

Hours are per resident per day, 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 0.40, weekend 3.87. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Harrington, John	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	10%	01/01/2005
Sweeney, Matthew	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	10%	01/01/2005
Woods, Charles	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	13%	01/01/2005
Woods, Thomas	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	67%	01/01/2005
Harrington, John	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2005
Harrington, John	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2005
Sweeney, Matthew	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2005
Sweeney, Matthew	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2005
Woods, Thomas	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	03/30/1999

Questions to ask on your visit

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

"How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
"How do you involve a resident's representative in care decisions, and how quickly are they consulted?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"How often do you evaluate your nurse aides and what ongoing training do they receive?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"Who oversees antibiotic use here, and how do you decide when an antibiotic is really needed?"
"How do you handle COVID-19 vaccination for residents and staff, and what happens during an outbreak?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Alliance Health at Maples	1.7 mi	Wrentham, MA	★★★☆☆	3/5
The Gardens at Cedarwood	4.0 mi	Franklin, MA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Foremost at Sharon LLC	6.8 mi	Sharon, MA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Mount St Rita Health Centre	6.9 mi	Cumberland, RI	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Premier Healthcare at Harrington House	6.9 mi	Walpole, MA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Madonna Manor Nursing Home	7.0 mi	North Attleboro, MA	★★★★☆	3/5
Thomas Upham House	7.0 mi	Medfield, MA	★★★★★	4/5
Medway Country Manor Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitat	7.4 mi	Medway, MA		—/5	SFF
Charlwell House Health and Rehabilitation	8.3 mi	Norwood, MA	★☆☆☆☆	2/5
Victoria Haven Nursing Facility	9.1 mi	Norwood, MA	★★☆☆☆	1/5
Garden Place Healthcare	9.4 mi	Attleboro, MA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Norwood Healthcare	9.6 mi	Norwood, MA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	SFF

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Wrentham →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225752.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Serenity Hill Nursing Center

655 Dedham St, Wrentham, MA 02093 · 5083843400

Health inspection rating 1/5 · CMS overall 1/5· Fines (3y): $0

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
☐ "How do you involve a resident's representative in care decisions, and how quickly are they consulted?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "How often do you evaluate your nurse aides and what ongoing training do they receive?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "Who oversees antibiotic use here, and how do you decide when an antibiotic is really needed?"
☐ "How do you handle COVID-19 vaccination for residents and staff, and what happens during an outbreak?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

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 225752 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)