Pine Heights at Brattleboro Center for Nursing & R
187 Oak Grove Avenue, Brattleboro, VT 05301 · For profit - Corporation · 80 certified beds · (802) 257-0307 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (36% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- about 20% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.8% | 19.3% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.6% | 6.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 43.6% | 13.0% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.7% | 5.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.1% | 17.4% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.9% | 16.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.7% | 5.3% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 35.3% | 26.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.8% | 19.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.9% | 78.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.3% | 22.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.1% | 17.9% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.18 | 1.52 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.81 | 2.88 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
50.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 258 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 112 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 34% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 50.3%CMS range 45.4–55.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 7.3–13.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 65.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 55.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 60.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 87.2% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.6% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.4%CMS range 3.8–9.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.20 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 80 beds and averages 77.1 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.75 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.24 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.30 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.94 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards of food service safety. This has the potential to impact all residents. Findings include:During the initial tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Manager (DM) on 9/15/2025 at 9:49 AM a frozen turkey in a cardboard box was noted on the floor and an open bag of frozen fish was seen on the shelf. When asked about the frozen turkey on the floor, the DM stated that it was left over from last Thanksgiving, and that she had just not discarded it yet. The DM also confirmed that the bag of fish had been left open and that it should not have been. On 9/15/2025 at approximately 10:15 AM on return to the kitchen, it was noted that clean dishes were being put away and placed on food carts while wet. At this time the DM confirmed that the dishes were being put away wet and that they should not be.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-17 · tag F0730 — patternObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete annual evaluations for two of three Licensed Nursing Assistants sampled. Findings include: Per record review of three Licensed Nursing Assistants' (LNA) personnel files that had worked at the facility for over a year, there was no documentation of annual evaluations for 2 of the 3 LNAs to indicate what education or trainings were appropriate for each LNA. Per interview on 9/17/2025 at 12:19 PM, the facility Administrator confirmed that they do not conduct annual evaluations for any staff. Per interview on 9/17/2025 at 12:48 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed that the facility does not conduct annual evaluations for Licensed Nursing Assistants.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 2 of 4 medication carts. Findings include:Observation on [DATE] at 8:17 AM for one of the Third Floor Unit medication carts revealed that the Isopto Atropine Solution 1% bottle had expired on 4/2025. Per interview on [DATE] at 8:17 AM with the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) assigned to this medication cart, they confirmed that the above medication had expired. They stated the process for checking for outdated medications was a task completed by the night shift.Observation on [DATE] at 11:51 AM for one of the Fourth Floor Unit medication carts revealed that a tube of Glutose 15 had expired on 6/2025. Per interview on [DATE] at 11:51 AM with the LPN assigned to this medication cart, they confirmed that the above medication had expired. They stated the process for checking for outdated medications was a task completed by the night shift.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-17 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident involvement in the care planning process for 1 of 20 residents (Resident #38). Findings include:Per interview on 9/15/2025 at 11:39 AM, Resident #38 reported that s/he is not involved in her/his care plan development or review. S/he stated that s/he feels that decisions involving her/his care are made without her/him and that s/he does not know when the facility reviews or revises her/his care plan. Review of a Care Conference/Care Plan meeting note dated 7/8/2025 reveals that a Nurse, Social Services, and Recreation was in attendance at the meeting. Section 2. of the form that states Was the resident/responsible party invited to the resident care conference? was left blank. Per interview with the facility Administrator on 9/17/2025 at 2:27 PM, residents and/or their responsible parties are only invited to the comprehensive care plan meetings which are done annually and with a significant change.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-17 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice related to care and maintenance of a PICC line for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #23). Findings include:Per record review, Resident # 23 has diagnoses that include acute osteomyelitis, left ankle and foot, and non-pressure chronic ulcer of the other part of the left foot. Resident #23 is receiving wound care and intravenous (IV) antibiotics through a PICC line. On 9/16/25 at 9:35 AM, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was observed preparing to administer an antibiotic via Resident #23's PICC line. She encountered resistance while trying to clear the catheter line to allow the antibiotic to pass through. This surveyor noticed that the line was very long and coiled, causing it to kink under the dressing, thus preventing the flow of liquid to flush the line. When the line was uncoiled, it measured 42 cm at the indicator marked on the line, indicating that the line could have potentially migrated out of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement infection control policies and procedures when staff didn't don personal protective equipment to handle an indwelling device for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #11). Findings include:Per observation on 9/16/2025 at 9:48 AM, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was observed picking up an indwelling catheter bag (collection bag for urine connected to a catheter, which is a thin, flexible tube that a healthcare provider inserts into the bladder to drain and collect urine) from the floor without wearing any personal protective equipment (PPE). Per interview on 09/17/2025 at 10:34 AM with the Infection Preventionist (IP), she confirmed that indwelling catheter bag handling, whether it is in a privacy pouch or not, requires gloves worn when handling, and Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) should be utilized during care of the catheter. The facility policy Urinary Catheterization policy dated 1/2023/4-24 defines EBP as the use of gown and gloves.Per interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-09-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon observation and interview, the facility failed to meet food service safety requirements. Findings include: 1.) Per observation on 9/8/24 at 9:30 PM and again on 9/11/24 at 9:45 AM, a fan located above the clean dish drying area in the facility's kitchen was noted to have a notable covering of dark gray dust-like material on the fan blades and the outer surface of the fan guard/grill. On 9/11/24 at 9:45 AM, the fan was noted to be circulating air directly above a tray of clean flatware. The dirt on the fan guard was noted to include a strand of dark, stringlike material extended from the guard while the fan was operating. The observation on 9/11/24 was conducted with the facility's Dietary Manager, who confirmed the fan blowing on the clean flatware represented an unsanitary condition, and stated that Maintenance had been notified about the fan needing cleaning the day before, on 9/10/24, but the cleaning had not been done. 2.) Per observation on 9/9/24 at 12:31 PM, a bag of white bread slices was noted to have visible green mold on it in the facility's 2nd floor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-11 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living [ADL] care and assistance to maintain good nutrition for 1 dependent resident [Res.#39] of 3 sampled residents dependent on ADL assistance. Findings include: Per review of Res.#39's Care Plan, the resident is identified as having as having Dysphagia [Dysphagia is a medical term for difficulty swallowing. Difficulty swallowing can lead to: Malnutrition, weight loss and dehydration. ]*, has risk for weight loss and malnutrition due to variable meal intake and dysphagia as well as cognitive impairment, at risk for dehydration, has impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes, has an ADL [Activities of Daily Living] self-care performance deficit related to dementia, and has impaired visual function related to left eye blindness. Care Plan interventions to counteract Res.#39's nutritional risks include EATING: Continual supervision, May need more cues/assist, Provide feeding/dining assistance as needed. Set up for meals, Ensure the resident has access to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide services that included supervision, monitoring, and ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care necessary to prevent a fall from a wheelchair for 1 of 10 residents in the applicable sample (Resident #19). Findings include: Per record review Resident #19 was found on the floor of her/his room at 1:45 AM on 8/7/24. Review of Resident #19's care plan reveals that s/he is totally dependent on two staff with a mechanical lift for transfers to and from a wheelchair. The care plan also indicates that s/he has an ADL self-care performance deficit, with interventions that include, ensure resident is assisted to bed by 11 PM unless resident requests otherwise, intentional rounding every 1 hour for repositioning, and monitor positioning while in room. A Health Status Note written on 8/7/2024 states that the Resident was found on the floor next to her/his wheelchair in her/his room at 1:45 AM. The note further states that the call light was out of reach and the mechanical lift was in the room. Another Health Status Note written on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2026-06-23 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to notify the long-term care Ombudsman of transfer/discharges for 3 of 3 sampled residents. Findings include:Per record review of Resident #1, Resident #2 and Resident #3's medical record, there was no documentation that the Ombudsman was notified of their transfer/discharge. Per interview on 6/23/26 at 12:15PM, the Administrator confirmed they do not notify the Ombudsman's office for planned transfers/discharges to other skilled nursing facilities.
- No harm found · C2024-09-11 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — widespreadHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, observation, and record reviews, the facility failed to support the resident's right to file grievances anonymously for 5 out of 5 residents in the sample (Resident's #5, #26, #55, #53 and #67). This has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings Include: Per interview at Resident Council (RC) on 9/11/2024 at 10:30 AM, 5 out of 5 residents revealed they did not know how to file a grievance anonymously, or at all, and had no access to forms to be able to file anonymously or independently. All five residents revealed if they had known and understood their rights to file a grievance, they would have done so. Per observation of all units at the facility at 11:45 AM, there was no evidence of grievance forms on any unit for a resident, or his/her representative, to submit a grievance independently or anonymously. Per interview on 9/11/2024 at approximately 12:00 PM with the Administrator, s/he confirmed that there were no forms available for individuals to file a grievance independently or anonymously on any units. The Administrator confirmed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES — 42 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
The other 41 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 41; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNB HEALTH CARE FUNDS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 7% | since 01/01/2013 |
| COHEN, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 7% | since 11/01/2007 |
| FUCHS, MORRIS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 8% | since 11/01/2007 |
| GOLDENBERG, CHAIM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 11/01/2007 |
| LIPMAN, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 11/01/2007 |
| MANELA, MAGDA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 5% | since 11/01/2007 |
| OSTREICHER, MARVIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 22% | since 11/01/2007 |
| ROBERTS, TZIVY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 7% | since 01/01/2014 |
| BOKOW, BARRY | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| DAVID, ALBERT | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| EISEN, MORDECHAI | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| GEFFNER, IRA | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| GERBER, JENNIFER | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| LAUFER, SCHMUEL | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| LOPIANSKY, REBECCA | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/14/2025 |
| LYONS, RACHEL | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| NEUMAN, GERALD | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| OSTREICHER, DAVID | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/14/2025 |
| OSTREICHER, MARC | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/14/2025 |
| POLLACK, NATHAN | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| SHAYA-MOGRABY, MOSHE | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| SKOCZYLAS, DVORA | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SKOCZYLAS, JOSEF | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| STEG, YITZCHOK | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| WARMAN, ELISSA | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| BIDERMAN, MICHAEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| BIDERMAN, SOL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| BIDERMAN, YEHUDA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| BEAUREGARD, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/09/2026 |
| DICKEY, KARI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/18/2024 |
| GOLDENBERG, HAROLD | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/15/2026 |
| GOLDENBERG, LEON | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/09/2026 |
| GOLDENBERG, MALKY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/15/2026 |
| HIRSH, LIBE | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/09/2026 |
| BARRY BOKOW 2012 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/07/2020 |
| BPB VENTURES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| CEDAR HILL NG TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/14/2025 |
| EP BRATTLEBORO ACQUISITION LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| GHL ENTERPRISES | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| JUNIPER NG TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/14/2025 |
| MARVIN OSTREICHER FAMILY TRUST 2012 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/27/2012 |
| NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| OAK DRIVE NG TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/14/2025 |
| PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| PREFERRED THERAPY SOLUTIONS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| ROLLING HILL NG TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/14/2025 |
| SUSAN OSTREICHER FAMILY TRUST 2012 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/27/2012 |
| ALMEIDA, ELIZABETH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| BOKOW, MICHAEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/30/2015 |
| OSTREICHER, SUSAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2007 |
| STEG, SHAYNA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/14/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 65 rows in the source record cover these 51 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
14 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 20% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in VT
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Vermont Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 475023. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-17, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.