Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around November 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Copley At Stoughton Nursing Care Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia, repeated falls, and Medicaid as primary payor was care planned for LTC placement and covered by the facility’s bed-hold/return policy. After the resident’s legs buckled while being assisted off the toilet, a family member, believing the resident had fallen, called police and EMS to request ED evaluation. Nursing staff told EMS there was no MD order for transfer and that the facility was not transferring the resident, and EMS records note the facility requested the resident not be sent back. The nursing supervisor, DON, and administrator subsequently treated the EMS transfer as a family-initiated discharge/AMA departure, without a physician discharge/transfer order or discharge paperwork, and determined the resident was not allowed to return, despite the resident’s payor source and the facility policy requiring residents be permitted to return after hospitalization.
Food storage lapses were identified in the main kitchen and unit kitchenette refrigerators when multiple opened foods and beverages were found undated, along with resident food items that were not labeled with dates. The FSD and an RN stated that opened foods, beverages, and resident items should be dated, and the FSD noted that some items should have been discarded, including decomposed produce and other undated foods.
Unnecessary PRN Psychotropic Medication: A cognitively intact resident with anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder was ordered alprazolam 0.5 mg PO q8h PRN for anxiety and received it 51 times on the MAR review. The record did not show a required 14-day stop date for the PRN psychotropic, and the DON and an RN stated that PRN psychotropics require a stop date and physician re-evaluation if continued.
A resident with a stroke, syncope, and a history of falls had a care plan directing staff to ensure slip-resistant socks or shoes were worn, but surveyors observed the resident wearing socks without grips while self-transferring, unsteady, and tangled in oxygen tubing with no staff in view. The resident was also seen in bed wearing non-grip socks on later observations, and CNA, UM, and DON interviews confirmed staff should have ensured the fall intervention was in place; the record did not show the resident refused the socks.
Failure to address a pharmacy recommendation for a resident with anxiety and major depressive disorder. The consultant pharmacist noted a PRN alprazolam order without a stop date and recommended discontinuing, scheduling, or adding a stop date if the medication remained PRN, but the medical record did not show physician response or documentation. The DON stated pharmacy recommendations should be addressed by the physician and documented in the record.
Medication storage and labeling were not maintained according to accepted standards. Surveyors found an expired bottle of GeriLanta in a medication room and observed two opened Trelegy Ellipta inhalers and two opened fluticasone propionate nasal sprays in a medication cart that were not dated. The DON and nurses stated that expired medications should be checked for and that inhalers and nasal sprays should be dated when opened.
Failure to Use Gown During EBP Incontinence Care: Two residents on EBP, including one with VRE history and one with VRE/MDRO and severe cognitive impairment, were observed receiving incontinence care without a precaution gown. Their orders, care plans, and doorway signage required gown and glove use for high-contact care such as changing briefs and toileting, but CNAs did not wear gowns and stated they believed gowns were only needed for urinary catheter care.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Antipsychotic Medication Use: A resident with a psychotic disorder and intact cognition had MDS assessments that incorrectly indicated antipsychotic use even though the antipsychotic had been discontinued and the MAR showed no administration afterward. The MDS nurse acknowledged the assessments were coded inaccurately, and the DON stated MDS coding should follow RAI guidelines.
The facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions for a resident with a urinary catheter, as a nurse did not perform hand hygiene or wear a gown during high-contact care. Additionally, the facility lacked an effective water management program to prevent Legionella growth, with no documentation of testing or monitoring. These deficiencies indicate a failure to maintain a safe environment for residents.
A facility failed to act on a Consultant Pharmacist's recommendation to add a stop date to a resident's as-needed Ativan order. The recommendation, made in July 2024, was not addressed, and the physician/prescriber response section was left blank. The Unit Manager was unaware of the recommendation, and the issue remained unresolved despite being included in pending recommendations lists provided in subsequent months.
A resident with dementia and anxiety was prescribed PRN antianxiety medications without adherence to the facility's policy of limiting use to 14 days or providing a documented rationale for extended use. The MAR showed multiple administrations of Ativan, but the medical record lacked necessary documentation for extending its use. A unit manager was aware of the need for stop dates on PRN orders.
A facility failed to ensure a resident's representative was involved in medical decisions, as required by policy. Despite a diagnosis of dementia and a physician's determination of incapacity, the resident signed a MOLST form without their health care proxy's involvement. The facility's policy mandates that the representative be involved when a resident lacks decision-making capacity, but this was not followed.
Two residents in a facility experienced deficiencies in their care plans. One resident, with a history of falls, had multiple incidents without new interventions being implemented, and their care plan was not updated. Another resident, with a neurogenic bladder, had a Foley catheter changed due to ineffectiveness, but the care plan was not revised to reflect this change. Interviews with staff confirmed the lack of updates to the care plans, highlighting a failure to adhere to facility policies.
The facility failed to provide care according to professional standards for two residents. One resident's implanted central line catheter was not identified or documented, and there were no orders for its care. Another resident had Foley catheters inserted without documented orders specifying the size of the catheter and retention balloon. Interviews revealed a lack of communication and documentation, and the facility's policies on orders were not followed.
The facility failed to complete and transmit discharge MDS assessments for two residents within the required timeframe, resulting in a delay of over 120 days. Both residents were admitted for short-term skilled rehabilitation services and discharged, but their MDS assessments were not submitted in a timely manner, as confirmed by the MDS Nurse and DON.
The facility failed to accurately code MDS assessments for three residents, leading to deficiencies in documenting hospice care, fall history, and antipsychotic medication use. A resident with heart failure and dementia was not coded for hospice care or a prognosis of less than six months, while another resident's fall with injury was missed. Additionally, a resident with a psychotic disorder was inaccurately coded as not receiving antipsychotic medication.
Improper Discharge and Refusal to Readmit Resident After Hospital Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s right and ability to return following a hospital evaluation, and the improper treatment of a hospital transfer as a voluntary discharge. The resident, admitted in April 2024 with dementia, history of UTIs, anxiety, repeated falls, and anemia, had a care plan indicating long-term care placement. The resident’s MassHealth Eligibility Form showed Medicaid as the primary payor on the day of transfer, meaning a bed hold should have been in place under facility policy, which states that residents must be permitted to return following hospitalization or therapeutic leave regardless of payor source. On the day of the incident, the resident was in the bathroom with a nurse when the resident’s legs buckled while being assisted off the toilet, and the nurse lowered the resident to the floor. A family member, who heard a loud bang and believed the resident had fallen, called the local police and EMS to have the resident evaluated in the ED, noting that the resident had recently fallen and been hospitalized two days earlier for chronic vertebral fractures. The nurse reported telling EMS there was no physician’s order for transfer and that the facility was not transferring the resident, and did not know which hospital EMS would use. EMS documentation indicated that the family requested ED evaluation and that facility staff requested the resident not be sent back and stated they would not accept the resident back. Following the transfer, the nursing supervisor, DON, and administrator treated the resident’s departure as a discharge initiated by the family and as having left against medical advice, despite there being no physician’s order for discharge or transfer and no discharge paperwork provided. The supervisor stated she was told by administration that the resident was considered discharged and not allowed to return. The DON and administrator both stated that the family had discharged the resident by calling police and EMS and initiating the ED transfer, and the administrator stated that because the family initiated the discharge, the facility did not have to readmit the resident despite the resident’s payor source. A police report documented that when the resident returned from the ED a few hours later, facility staff stated the resident had been transferred AMA and was discharged from the facility, and the facility would not accept the resident back, contrary to the facility’s bed-hold and return policy and the requirement to permit return after hospitalization.
Food Storage Lapses in Kitchen and Unit Refrigerators
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by not ensuring that food was labeled and dated in the main kitchen and in three unit kitchenette refrigerators. During the initial walkthrough of the main kitchen, the surveyor observed multiple items that were opened but undated, including cooked diced chicken, sliced ham, two opened gallon containers of apple cider, one opened container of orange juice, three packages of sliced cheese, a meat patty on a plate, and two pans of leftover food. The surveyor also observed a plastic container holding 20 pre-portioned cottage cheese containers with tape indicating a date of 11/17/25, an opened tub of fruit salad mix with 11/7 written on the lid and a manufacturer best-by date of 11/17/25, and two tomatoes with significant decomposition and white wispy growth in the walk-in refrigerator. In the unit kitchenette refrigerators, the surveyor observed undated resident food items and beverages, including containers of food with resident room numbers written on them, orange juice, eggnog, apple cider, an applesauce jar, pre-portioned dessert items, pre-portioned containers of food consistent with yogurt, and a sandwich in a plastic bag that was not dated. Nursing staff and the Food Service Director stated that resident food and opened beverages should be dated, and the Food Service Director stated that undated food should have been discarded. The Food Service Director also stated that prepared and open food should be labeled, dated, and typically discarded after five days, and that cottage cheese should be discarded after three days.
Unnecessary PRN Psychotropic Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure one resident was free from unnecessary psychotropic medication. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder, and the most recent MDS assessment showed a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Physician orders included alprazolam 0.5 mg by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety, starting on 10/20/25. Review of the MAR from 10/20/25 through 12/1/25 showed the resident received alprazolam 51 times as needed. The medical record did not indicate that a 14-day stop date had been initiated for the PRN alprazolam. During interviews, Nurse #4 stated that a PRN psychotropic requires a stop date and physician re-evaluation, and the DON stated that psychotropic medication should have a 14-day stop and be re-evaluated by the physician if continued, with this documented in the medical record.
Fall Intervention Not Followed for a Resident at Risk for Falls
Penalty
Summary
Failure to maintain a safe environment and provide adequate supervision occurred when the facility did not follow Resident #91’s fall plan of care requiring slip-resistant shoes or socks with grips. Resident #91 was admitted with diagnoses including stroke, syncope, and a history of falls. The most recent MDS indicated the resident was cognitively intact and required partial/moderate assistance with putting on and taking off socks. The care plan, revised 8/19/25, directed staff to ensure the resident wore slip-resistant shoes or socks with grips. Surveyors observed Resident #91 self-transfer out of bed wearing white socks without grips, with no staff in view, while the resident was tangled in oxygen tubing and unsteady while standing and stated he/she was going to the bathroom. The resident was also observed in bed on multiple later occasions wearing white socks without grips. CNA #1 stated the resident was wearing socks without grip and said staff usually put non-grip socks on when the resident was in bed, despite acknowledging the resident could not put on or remove socks without staff assistance. Unit Manager #1 and the DON both stated they would expect the fall intervention to be in place and that staff should have ensured the resident always had socks with grips on. The record reviewed did not indicate the resident refused to wear socks with grips.
Failure to Address Pharmacy Recommendation for PRN Alprazolam
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement pharmacy recommendations for one resident out of a sample of 24. The resident was admitted in October 2025 with diagnoses including anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder, and the most recent MDS dated 10/26/25 showed a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the facility policy titled Consultant Pharmacy Reports, dated 2024, stated that recommendations are to be acted upon and documented by facility staff and/or the prescriber, and that the prescriber accepts and acts upon suggestions or rejects them with an explanation. The consultant pharmacist’s recommendation dated 10/23/25 noted that the resident had an order for a psychoactive PRN alprazolam without a stop date recorded. The pharmacist stated that after 14 days, continued use of the psychoactive PRN may be allowed if the benefit outweighs the risk, and recommended considering discontinuing the medication or scheduling it if necessary, or adding a stop date if it remained PRN. Review of the medical record did not show that the physician addressed the pharmacy recommendation. During interview, the DON stated that pharmacy recommendations should be addressed by the physician and documented in the medical record.
Medication Storage and Labeling Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
Drugs and biologicals were not stored in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice. On the [NAME] Unit medication room, surveyors observed one bottle of GeriLanta antacid that had expired in 10/2025. In addition, on the [NAME] Unit side A medication cart, surveyors observed two Trelegy Ellipta inhalers and two fluticasone propionate nasal sprays that had been opened but were not dated. Facility policy stated that medications and biologicals must be labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and include an expiration date when applicable. During interviews, Nurse #1 stated nurses are responsible for ensuring no expired medications are in the medication room, Nurse #2 stated inhalers and nasal sprays should be dated once opened, and the DON stated medications without expiration dates should be labeled and dated when opened and that nurses are responsible for checking expired medications in medication carts and medication rooms.
Failure to Use Gown During EBP Incontinence Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two residents who were on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). The deficiency involved staff not wearing precaution gowns during incontinence care for residents who had orders and care plans requiring gown and glove use during high-contact care activities. Resident #39 was admitted with diagnoses including urinary retention and failure to thrive, had a cognitively intact MDS score of 15 out of 15, and had an active physician order to maintain Enhanced Precaution related to a history of VRE in stool. The care plan stated the resident was on enhanced precautions for VRE in stool and that staff would wear gloves and gown for high-contact activities including dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, changing linens, providing hygiene, and changing briefs/assisting with toileting. During observation, a CNA changed the resident’s incontinence brief without wearing a precaution gown, despite a posted sign at the doorway stating that gown and gloves were required for high-contact resident care activities. The CNA stated she believed a gown was only required for urinary catheter care and not for incontinence care. Resident #72 was admitted with diagnoses including VRE, had severe cognitive impairment with an MDS Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 2 out of 15, and had an active order for Enhanced Barrier Precautions for MDRO. The care plan directed staff to wear gloves and gown for high-contact resident care activities including dressing, providing hygiene, bathing/showering, changing brief/toileting, transferring, and device care. During observation, a CNA changed the resident’s incontinence brief without wearing a precaution gown, even though a sign at the doorway indicated that gown and gloves were required for high-contact activities including hygiene and changing brief or assisting with toileting. Interviews with the Unit Manager, DON, and Infection Preventionist confirmed that a precaution gown was required during incontinence care for residents on EBP and that the CNAs should have been wearing one.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Antipsychotic Medication Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately code the use of antipsychotic medications in the Minimum Data Set for one resident out of 24 sampled residents. The resident was admitted in November 2013 with diagnoses including a psychotic disorder with delusions and was cognitively intact on the most recent MDS, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15. Review of the medical record showed that annual, discharge, and quarterly MDS assessments indicated the resident received antipsychotic medication, and physician orders showed Abilify 1 mg was started on 3/18/22 and discontinued on 6/4/25. However, the medication administration record from 6/5/25 through 12/2/25 did not show any antipsychotic medications administered after Abilify was discontinued. During interview, the MDS Nurse stated the MDS assessments dated 7/2/25, 9/24/25, and 10/1/25 were coded inaccurately because the resident did not receive any antipsychotic medications during that time, and the DON stated she would expect all MDS assessments to be coded accurately according to RAI guidelines.
Infection Control and Water Management Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by two main deficiencies. Firstly, the staff did not implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. The resident, who had severe cognitive impairment and a Foley catheter, was observed by a surveyor to have an EBP sign posted at their room. However, a nurse failed to perform hand hygiene before donning gloves and did not wear a gown while providing high-contact care, such as repositioning the resident and examining the catheter. The nurse admitted to not noticing the EBP sign and not being informed about the precautions, which was confirmed by the unit manager and the infection preventionist. Secondly, the facility did not have an effective water management program in place to prevent the growth of Legionella and other waterborne pathogens. The Director of Maintenance, who was new to the facility, could not provide documentation of a water management program prior to his hire. The administrator presented a binder for a program that was supposed to be in place, but there was no testing or monitoring documentation available for the specified period. Additionally, the infection preventionist had not participated in the water management program, indicating a lack of oversight and implementation. These deficiencies highlight the facility's failure to adhere to infection control protocols and maintain a safe environment for residents. The lack of proper precautions for residents with indwelling devices and the absence of a documented water management program pose significant risks for the transmission of infections and diseases.
Failure to Address Pharmacist's Medication Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to act promptly on recommendations made by the Consultant Pharmacist during the monthly Medication Regimen Reviews (MRR) for a resident with dementia and anxiety. The resident was admitted in February 2024, and during a review in July 2024, the Consultant Pharmacist recommended adding a stop date to the resident's as-needed Ativan order. This recommendation was not addressed, and the physician/prescriber response section on the recommendation form was left blank. Interviews revealed that the Unit Manager was unaware of the pharmacist's recommendations from July, and the Consultant Pharmacist confirmed that the recommendation was included in a list of pending recommendations provided to the facility in both August and September 2024. Despite these notifications, the facility did not act on the recommendation, resulting in a deficiency related to the management of the resident's medication regimen.
Failure to Limit PRN Antianxiety Medication Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications. Specifically, the facility did not limit the use of as-needed antianxiety medications to 14 days or provide a documented clinical rationale and duration for extending their use beyond 14 days. The facility's policy on psychotropic medication use, dated July 2022, requires that PRN orders for such medications be limited to 14 days unless extended with proper documentation. However, the medical record for the resident in question did not show compliance with this policy. The resident, who was admitted in February 2024 with diagnoses including dementia and anxiety, had physician's orders for Alprazolam and Ativan, both antianxiety medications, on an as-needed basis without specified end dates. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated multiple administrations of Ativan over several months, but no administration of Alprazolam. Despite this, there was no documentation in the resident's medical record to justify the extended use of Ativan beyond the 14-day limit. During an interview, a unit manager acknowledged awareness of the requirement for stop dates on as-needed psychotropic medication orders.
Failure to Involve Resident's Representative in Medical Decisions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's representative was able to make medical decisions on behalf of the resident, as required by the facility's policy on advance directives. The resident, who was admitted with a diagnosis of dementia, had a physician determine that they lacked the capacity to make or communicate health care decisions. Despite this, the resident signed a Massachusetts Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form without the involvement of their designated health care proxy (HCP), who had been activated due to the resident's cognitive impairment. The facility's policy requires that the interdisciplinary team assess a resident's decision-making capacity and involve the resident's representative if the resident is determined to lack capacity. However, in this case, the resident's MOLST form was completed and signed by the resident themselves, rather than their HCP, which was a deviation from the policy. During an interview, a unit manager acknowledged that the HCP should have reviewed and signed the MOLST form, indicating a lapse in following the established procedures for residents who are unable to make their own medical decisions.
Deficiencies in Care Plan Implementation for Fall Risk and Catheter Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement individualized, person-centered care plans for two residents, leading to deficiencies in addressing their physical, psychosocial, and functional needs. For one resident, the facility did not implement effective interventions to address the resident's risk for falls, despite multiple incidents. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including repeated falls, concussion, and dementia, experienced four falls after admission. The facility's incident reports for these falls did not indicate new interventions to prevent future falls, and the resident's care plan was not updated to reflect additional fall prevention measures. Another resident, admitted with neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, had issues with the management of an indwelling urinary catheter. The resident was treated for a urinary tract infection and had a Foley catheter in place, which was later changed to a larger size due to ineffectiveness. However, the care plan was not updated to reflect this change, and there was no physician's order indicating the new catheter size. This oversight was confirmed during an interview with a nurse who was unaware of the catheter's specifications until physically checking it. The facility's policies on falls and comprehensive person-centered care plans were not adhered to, as evidenced by the lack of updated interventions and care plans following significant changes in the residents' conditions. Interviews with nursing staff and management revealed that the care plans were not revised as required, contributing to the deficiencies identified during the survey.
Deficiencies in Documentation and Care for Medical Devices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards of practice for two residents. For Resident #77, the facility did not identify and provide care for an implanted central line catheter. Despite the resident's hospital discharge paperwork indicating the presence of an implanted port, the initial and re-admission assessments failed to document this. Interviews with nursing staff revealed that the implanted central line catheter was not identified or documented, and there were no orders for its care and maintenance. For Resident #37, the facility did not ensure that physician's orders for the insertion of indwelling Foley catheters, including the size of the device, were obtained and documented in the medical record on three occasions. The resident, who had severe cognitive impairment and a history of neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, had a Foley catheter inserted without documented orders specifying the size of the catheter and retention balloon. Interviews with nursing staff and the nurse practitioner indicated a lack of communication and documentation regarding the catheter changes. The facility's policies on medication and treatment orders, as well as verbal orders, were not followed, leading to deficiencies in the care provided to these residents. The Director of Nursing acknowledged that the expected procedures for documenting and obtaining orders for the care and maintenance of medical devices were not adhered to, resulting in the deficiencies identified during the survey.
Delayed MDS Transmission for Discharged Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete and transmit discharge assessments for two residents, resulting in a significant delay in the encoding and transmission of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 Manual, the MDS must be transmitted electronically no later than 14 calendar days after the care plan completion date. However, for both residents involved, the discharge MDS was not completed until approximately four months after their discharge from the facility. Resident #25 was admitted for short-term skilled rehabilitation services and discharged to the community, while Resident #42 was admitted for similar services and discharged to the hospital. In both cases, the MDS assessments were not submitted for over 120 days post-discharge. During interviews, MDS Nurse #1 acknowledged the delay, and the Director of Nursing confirmed that the expectation was for the MDS assessments to be encoded and transmitted in a timely manner.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for three residents, leading to deficiencies in the documentation of their care. Resident #80, who was admitted with diagnoses including heart failure, cerebral infarction, and dementia, was not accurately coded on the 9/4/24 MDS to reflect a prognosis of less than six months, despite having a Hospice Certification of Terminal Illness indicating such a prognosis. The MDS Nurse cited difficulties in obtaining timely documentation as a reason for the inaccurate coding. Resident #93, admitted with heart failure and dementia, had multiple inaccuracies in their MDS assessments. The 3/1/24 MDS failed to indicate that the resident was receiving hospice care, despite a Hospice Certification of Terminal Illness confirming hospice initiation. Additionally, the 5/29/24 MDS inaccurately recorded the resident's fall history, missing documentation of a fall with injury. The 8/28/24 MDS also failed to reflect the resident's prognosis of less than six months, similar to the issue with Resident #80. The MDS Nurse acknowledged missing documentation and difficulties in obtaining necessary records in time. Resident #76, with a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, was inaccurately coded on the 8/21/24 MDS regarding the use of antipsychotic medication. Despite physician orders and medication administration records indicating daily administration of Olanzapine, the MDS incorrectly stated that no antipsychotic medications were received. The MDS Nurse admitted the error in coding, acknowledging that the resident was indeed receiving antipsychotic medication.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 990 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 5 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Stoughton
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Center At Blue Hills | 1 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| New England Sinai Hospital Transitional Care Unit | 2.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Alliance Health At West Acres | 2.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| Brockton Post Acute Care | 3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| The Guardian Center | 3.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Copley At Stoughton Nursing Care Center.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.