Brighton Post Acute Care
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Brighton Post Acute Care has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with several concerns. It ranks #138 out of 338 facilities in Massachusetts, which places it in the top half, but still raises questions about quality. The facility is showing improvement, with issues decreasing from 19 in 2023 to just 3 in 2024. However, staffing is a concern, with a low rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 53%, significantly above the state average. Additionally, it has faced $200,070 in fines, which is higher than 97% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents noted by inspectors include failures to prevent falls for residents, where care plans were not followed, resulting in injuries. There were also concerns regarding infection control, such as not disinfecting reusable medical equipment properly. On a positive note, the facility has received an excellent rating of 5 out of 5 stars for quality measures, and its RN coverage is average, meaning that while there are areas needing improvement, some aspects of care are being delivered effectively. Overall, families may find some strengths here, but should weigh them against the significant concerns and recent findings.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Massachusetts
- #138/338
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $200,070 in fines. Higher than 96% of Massachusetts facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Massachusetts. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 35 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Massachusetts average (2.9)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Massachusetts avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 35 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to identify and complete a Significant Change in Status (SCSA) Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) for one Resident (#16), out of a total sampl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the MDS 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, dated October 2023, indicated:
-Comatose is defined as a p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, policy review and interview the facility failed to store medications in a safe manner, store medications in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
19 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(H)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to 1.follow the care plan intervention to prevent a fall...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in status for one Resident (#23) out of a total sample of 30 Residents. Specifically, the fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment, specifically, failed to address a chi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility in March 2023, with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, dementia and falls.
Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a written notice of discharge prior to transferring Two Residents (#1 and #20) to the hospital, out of a total sample of 30 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide a bed-hold notice upon transfer to the hospital for Two Residents (#1 and #20), out of a total sample of 30 residents.
Findings i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including presence of cardiac pacemaker.
Review of facility...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility in April 2023 with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
Review of the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with Activities of Daily Living (AD...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff obtained necessary podiatry (foot care) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. For Resident #34 the facility failed to implement a dietician recommendations to prevent a significant weight loss.
Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for the use of a CPAP machine (a machine for Continuous Positive Airway Pressure to treat sleep a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure pharmaceutical services met the needs of each resident. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an antibiotic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide a diet to meet one Resident (#40)'s specific ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical record f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, records reviewed, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when 2 out of 4 nurses observed made 4...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure controlled medications were locked appropriately, medications were stored in clean/sanitary conditions, medications we...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on resident group meeting, interview and test tray results, the facility failed to ensure foods provided to the residents were prepared by methods that conserve nutritional value, flavor, palata...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to 1.) ensure nursing staff disinfected reusable resident care equipment (a vital sign machine) between residents and 2.) ensur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
13 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician after a significant weight loss for one Resident (#32) out of a sample of 21 Residents.
Findings includ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to complete falls risk quarterly assessments for two Residents (#47 and #32) out of a sample of 21 Residents.
Findings include:
R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to accurately document wound dressing changes for one Resident (#24) of 21 sampled Residents.
Findings include:
Review of the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to implement the physician's order to treat non-pressure wounds for one Resident (#24) of 21 sampled Residents.
Findings include:...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to implement the physician's order to manage the risk for pressure injuries for one Resident (#12) of 21 sampled residents.
Find...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure it implemented interventions to manage the fall risk for one Resident (#121) out of 21 sampled Residents.
Findings inc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to address weight loss in one Resident (#32) out of a sample of 21 Residents.
Findings include:
Review of the facility policy t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff maintained infection control standards of practice related to care of oxygen tubing for one Resident (#19) out of a total s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it was free of a medication error rate of five percent or greater when one of three nurses, on 1 of 2 nursing units ma...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interview, the facility failed to ensure it maintained an accurate medical record related to advan...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff followed infection control standards during the medication pass, specifically related to insulin administration.
Findings ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure it provided a call light, or other means of communication, to contact nursing staff for one Resident (#121) of 21 sampled Residents.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and observation, the facility failed to ensure it replaced damaged ceiling tiles in a timely manner.
Finding...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 harm violation(s), $200,070 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 35 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $200,070 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Massachusetts. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade D (40/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Brighton Post Acute Care's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Brighton Post Acute Care an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Massachusetts, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Brighton Post Acute Care Staffed?
CMS rates Brighton Post Acute Care's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 78%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Brighton Post Acute Care?
State health inspectors documented 35 deficiencies at Brighton Post Acute Care during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 34 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Brighton Post Acute Care?
Brighton Post Acute Care is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by BANECARE MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 78 certified beds and approximately 70 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BRIGHTON, Massachusetts.
How Does Brighton Post Acute Care Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, Brighton Post Acute Care's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.9, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Brighton Post Acute Care?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Brighton Post Acute Care Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Brighton Post Acute Care has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Brighton Post Acute Care Stick Around?
Brighton Post Acute Care has a staff turnover rate of 53%, which is 7 percentage points above the Massachusetts average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Brighton Post Acute Care Ever Fined?
Brighton Post Acute Care has been fined $200,070 across 1 penalty action. This is 5.7x the Massachusetts average of $35,080. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Brighton Post Acute Care on Any Federal Watch List?
Brighton Post Acute Care is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.