Timothy Daniels House
84 Elm Street, Holliston, MA 01746 · Middlesex County · 40 certified beds · avg 29 residents/day · certified since Aug 1, 1996
Part of chain: REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES (6 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.96
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5
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 (26)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 25, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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 6, 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. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Mar 6, 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. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | 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 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 6, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 6, 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. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | 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. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | 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. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | 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. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Feb 16, 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. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
Inspection trend by year
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 17 | 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
0 fines totaling $0, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 16, 2024 | Payment Denial | 18 days from Mar 28, 2024 |
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) | 4.96 | 3.89 | 3.95 | top 10% in Massachusetts; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.98 | 0.65 | 0.69 | top 9% in Massachusetts; top 17% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.72 | 3.51 | 3.50 | top 8% in Massachusetts; top 9% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.59 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 19% in Massachusetts; top 23% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 50.0 | 38.2 | 45.8 | bottom 18% in Massachusetts; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 28.6 | 42.6 | 42.9 | top 24% in Massachusetts; top 26% in the U.S. |
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 4.44, RN 0.88, weekend 4.22. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thisse, Marion | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 03/14/2024 |
| Bunker, Thomas | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/13/2016 |
| Rehabilitation Associates INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/24/1972 |
| Thisse, Peter | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/1990 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Walk me through what happens when a resident or family files a grievance — who responds and how fast?"
- "What is your policy on physical restraints, and what alternatives do you try first?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medway Country Manor Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitat | 3.1 mi | Medway, MA | —/5 | SFF | |
| Waterview Lodge LLC, Rehabilitation & Healthcare | 4.0 mi | Ashland, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Bethany Skilled Nursing Facility | 4.6 mi | Framingham, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Oc Milford Gardens LLC | 5.4 mi | Milford, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Carlyle House | 6.0 mi | Framingham, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Eliot Center for Health and Rehabilitation | 6.0 mi | Natick, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Casa de Ramana Rehabilitation Center | 6.1 mi | Framingham, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Thomas Upham House | 6.1 mi | Medfield, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Blaire House of Milford | 6.5 mi | Milford, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Mary Ann Morse Nursing & Rehabilitation | 7.2 mi | Natick, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| St Patrick's Manor | 7.3 mi | Framingham, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Countryside Health Care of Milford | 7.5 mi | Milford, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225709.