Massachusetts ›Fall River

The Grove at Carvalho

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

273 Oak Grove Avenue, Fall River, MA 02723 (opens Google Maps) · Bristol County · (781) 831-3966· 112 certified beds · avg 79 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 →

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 8, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Feb 3, 2026
$39,082
Fines, last 3 years
3.64
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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 · Feb 3, 2026 · 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: Feb 23, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 3, 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: Feb 23, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 47 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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. F-0880

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    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. F-0881

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    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

View all 47 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 8, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 8, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0881
Apr 8, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 8, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 8, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 3, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 3, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 3, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Feb 3, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Feb 19, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0838
Feb 19, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867
Feb 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Feb 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit. · F-0711
Feb 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · F-0712
Feb 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0757
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0881
Feb 19, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577
Feb 19, 2025B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe facility did not follow the rules about disclosing who owns it, or did not tell the state agency about changes in ownership or key administrative staff. · F-0844
Sep 10, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0580
Sep 10, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Sep 10, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · from a complaint · F-0849
Dec 27, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Dec 27, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Dec 27, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0727
Dec 27, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Dec 27, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Dec 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644
Dec 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0757
Dec 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 27, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (22 → 5).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 22
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 2

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023130E
202430D
2025220F
202692G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

7 fines totaling $39,082.

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.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 3, 2026Fine$8,278
Feb 3, 2026Fine$8,278
Jan 8, 2024Fine$4,178
Jan 2, 2024Fine$3,529
Dec 11, 2023Fine$8,469
Nov 20, 2023Fine$2,117
Oct 30, 2023Fine$4,233

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityMassachusetts averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.64
Massachusetts average: 3.89
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.45
Massachusetts average: 0.65
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.45
Massachusetts average: 3.51
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityMassachusetts avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.643.893.95bottom 42% in Massachusetts; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.450.650.69bottom 22% in Massachusetts; bottom 30% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.453.513.50top 43% in Massachusetts; top 45% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.300.460.48bottom 26% in Massachusetts; bottom 31% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)—38.245.8—
RN turnover (%)—42.642.9—

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 0.42, weekend 3.24.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: 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.

Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · 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 The Grove at Carvalho. 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 - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Ownership Data Not Available

All 1 owning or managing party CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "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?"
  • "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?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"

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?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 73 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Kimwell Nursing and Rehabilitation0.6 miFall River, MA★☆☆☆☆2/5
Fall River Jewish Home0.6 miFall River, MA★☆☆☆☆2/5
Fall River Healthcare1.8 miFall River, MA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Clifton Rehabilitation Nursing Center2.2 miSomerset, MA★★★★☆4/5
Catholic Memorial Home2.3 miFall River, MA★★☆☆☆2/5
Somerset Ridge Center2.4 miSomerset, MA★★★★☆4/5
Mill Brook Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center2.7 miFall River, MA★★★★☆3/5
Sarah S Brayton Center4.1 miFall River, MA★★☆☆☆2/5
Crestwood Nursing & Rehabilitation Center INC6.6 miWarren, RI★★★★★5/5
Grace Barker Nursing Center7.0 miWarren, RI★★★★☆4/5
Warren Operations Ri, LLC DBA Warren Center7.0 miWarren, RI★★★★☆4/5
The Dawn Hill Home for Rehab and Healthcare7.1 miBristol, RI★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Bristol, MA — 28 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.

All facilities in Fall River →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225453.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details