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 →
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 15, 2026
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Dec 16, 2024
$140,856
Fines, last 3 years
4.71
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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 · Dec 16, 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 (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: Nov 14, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Dec 16, 2024 · F-0607 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Without working prevention policies, mistreatment is more likely to happen and less likely to be caught.
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: Nov 20, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
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: Mar 7, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 14 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. F-0726
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. F-0583
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care. F-0710
View all 14 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
Apr 15, 2026
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Apr 15, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Apr 15, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care. · F-0710
Apr 15, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The 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
Apr 15, 2026
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
Nov 25, 2025
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
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. · from a complaint · F-0812
Apr 23, 2025
C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread
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 16, 2024
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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
Dec 16, 2024
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 16, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. · from a complaint · F-0943
Feb 7, 2024
▲ 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
Feb 7, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Feb 7, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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
Feb 7, 2024
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
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 5).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations:
7
Serious citations (G–L):
3
2025
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2026
All citations:
5
Serious citations (G–L):
0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2024
7
3
J ▲
2025
2
0
F
2026
5
0
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.
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
Dec 16, 2024
Fine
$112,847
Feb 7, 2024
Fine
$28,009
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 facilityVermont averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
4.71
Vermont average:
4.34
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.77
Vermont average:
0.82
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
4.42
Vermont average:
3.76
U.S. average:
3.50
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)
4.71
4.34
3.95
top 36% in Vermont; top 18% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.77
0.82
0.69
bottom 48% in Vermont; top 29% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
4.42
3.76
3.50
top 23% in Vermont; top 13% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.32
0.52
0.48
bottom 16% in Vermont; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
63.6
55.4
45.8
bottom 32% in Vermont; bottom 11% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
40.0
39.9
42.9
top 45% in Vermont; top 46% 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 4.19, RN 0.69, weekend 3.93.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.19 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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 The Manor, INC.. 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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 475057.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
The Care File
Visit checklist — The Manor, INC.
577 Washington Highway, Morrisville, VT 05661 · (802) 888-8700
Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 3/5· Fines (3y): $140,856
Most serious findings on record:
▲ Dec 16, 2024 (F-0600, Immediate jeopardy, 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.
▲ Dec 16, 2024 (F-0607, Immediate jeopardy, 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.
▲ Feb 7, 2024 (F-0684, 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.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
☐ "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"
☐ "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
☐ "Who would be my family member's attending doctor here, and how often would they be seen?"
☐ "How often does each resident's doctor visit and review their care in person?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "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?"
☐ "CMS reports 64% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "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 475057 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)