863 Central Street, Framingham, MA 01701 (opens Google Maps) · Middlesex County · (857) 345-0297· 333 certified beds · avg 262 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: CARMELITE SISTERS FOR THE AGED & INFIRM (9 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Aug 25, 2023 · F-0678 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.
Why it matters: In a cardiac or breathing emergency, failure to start CPR promptly can be the difference between life and death.
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: Aug 28, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 24, 2024 · 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: Jul 18, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jul 24, 2024 · 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: Jul 18, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 30, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
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 24, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 19 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 did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. F-0578
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. F-0604
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 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 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 25, 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 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 24, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Jul 24, 2024 | ▲ 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 30, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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 30, 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. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Dec 5, 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 |
| Dec 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0580 |
| Dec 5, 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 |
| Aug 25, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint · F-0678 |
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 4 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2024 | 4 | 3 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 11 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
3 fines totaling $33,157.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 24, 2024 | Fine | $9,318 |
| Apr 30, 2024 | Fine | $9,318 |
| Aug 25, 2023 | Fine | $14,521 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 4.36 | 3.89 | 3.95 | top 20% in Massachusetts; top 27% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.89 | 0.65 | 0.69 | top 13% in Massachusetts; top 21% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.93 | 3.51 | 3.50 | top 20% in Massachusetts; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.59 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 20% in Massachusetts; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 30.1 | 38.2 | 45.8 | top 26% in Massachusetts; top 14% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 16.7 | 42.6 | 42.9 | top 7% in Massachusetts; top 9% 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 4.09, RN 0.83, weekend 3.69.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.09 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for St Patrick's Manor. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hines, David | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2016 |
| Hines, David | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/06/1996 |
| Kizik, Donna | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2016 |
| Kizik, Donna | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
| McDonough, Maureen | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2003 |
| McDonough, Maureen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/1990 |
All 6 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Carmelite Sisters for the Aged & Infirm — 9 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.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Casa de Ramana Rehabilitation Center | 1.2 mi | Framingham, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Carlyle House | 1.6 mi | Framingham, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Oak Knoll Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 2.1 mi | Framingham, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethany Skilled Nursing Facility | 2.7 mi | Framingham, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Eliot Center for Health and Rehabilitation | 3.0 mi | Natick, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Royal Wayland Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 3.5 mi | Wayland, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Sudbury Pines Extended Care | 3.7 mi | Sudbury, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Beaumont Rehab & Skilled Nursing Ctr - Natick | 3.8 mi | Natick, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Vantage at Sudbury LLC | 4.2 mi | Sudbury, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Alliance Health at Marie Esther | 4.8 mi | Marlborough, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Mary Ann Morse Nursing & Rehabilitation | 5.0 mi | Natick, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Waterview Lodge LLC, Rehabilitation & Healthcare | 5.2 mi | Ashland, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
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.
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 225430.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details