Brandon Woods of Dartmouth
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Brandon Woods of Dartmouth has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor quality of care, which places it in the bottom tier of nursing facilities. It ranks #206 out of 338 in Massachusetts, meaning it is in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #14 out of 27 in Bristol County, suggesting only a few local options may be better. The facility is worsening, with the number of issues identified doubling from 5 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Staffing is average with a rating of 3 out of 5, but a high turnover rate of 53% is concerning compared to the state average of 39%. While the facility has an average fine of $20,651, it has less RN coverage than 79% of Massachusetts facilities, which is a significant drawback as RNs are crucial for identifying issues that may be missed by CNAs. Notably, there have been serious incidents where staff failed to provide the necessary assistance for resident transfers, leading to a resident suffering a fractured hip after falling when left unattended, highlighting critical gaps in care. Additionally, another resident did not receive required dressing changes for an elbow injury, resulting in a pressure injury. Overall, while there are some strengths, the facility's significant deficiencies and trends raise considerable concerns for families considering this home for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Massachusetts
- #206/338
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $20,651 in fines. Lower than most Massachusetts facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Massachusetts. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 36 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-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
Below Massachusetts average (2.9)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Massachusetts avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 36 deficiencies on record
Sept 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
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 records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who experienced a change in condition on 8/08/25, the Facility failed to ensure the Provider was notified.Fi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential for foodborne illness to re...
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
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure its staff maintained accurate documentation for one Resident (#25), out of a total of 20 residents. Specifically, the facility fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the Pneumococcal immunization as requested/consented in a t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and failed to complete anti...
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 observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were transmitted within 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
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** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents, (Resident #1) whose Plan of Care related to Activi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents, (Resident #1) who had a diagnosis of Dysphagia (di...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents, (Resident #1), who had a history of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and required an altered texture diet, the Facility f...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who required the use of a mechanical l...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
3 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2), whose Plans of Care ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records reviewed and interviews, for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2), who required the phy...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, records reviewed and interviews, the facility failed to ensure there was a Registered Nurse (RN) to serve as the Director of Nurses (DON) on a full-time basis.
Findings include:...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who required the use of a splint to secure a fracture he/she sustained to his/her right elbow, the Facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility's abuse policy for one Resident (#44), of a total sample of 20 residents. Specificall...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility's abuse policy for one Resident (#44), of a total sample of 20 residents. Specificall...
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
Based on policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented the facility's abuse policy for one Resident (#44), of a total sample of 20 residents. Specificall...
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, interview, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided the necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and document and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice. Sp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, policy review, and document review, the facility failed to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee which included the required members at their me...
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 observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained an infection control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to transmit timely, thorough completion of Minimum Data Set (MDS) asse...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2021
13 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the nutritional status was maintained for one Resident (#49), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, ...
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
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the staff developed comprehensive care plans for two Residents (#23 and #30), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a comprehensive care plan for one Resident (#69) was reviewed and revised after his/her advance directives were changed, out ...
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 observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to provide treatment and services that adhere to professional standards of practice and failed to recognize and assess risk f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff followed their policy and maintained effective communication between the facility and Dialysis Center consis...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a medication irregularity, identified during the monthly Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review (MRR), was addressed and the r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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:
(1) Store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments, and per...
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
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the medical record accurately reflected the current medical orders for life sustaining treatment for one Resident (#69), out of a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews, policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to develop and maintain an integrated, person centered Hospice care plan identifying coordination of care between the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. Resident #80 was admitted to the facility in June 2020 with diagnoses which included failure to thrive, severe malnutrition, and pharyngeal cancer with dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).
Review of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
1. Resident #80 was admitted to the facility in June 2020 with diagnoses which included failure to thrive, severe malnutrition, and pharyngeal cancer with dysphagia.
Review of the Minimum Data Set (MD...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to designate a person who would ensure the function of the department, meet the nutritional needs of all residents, and meet the minimu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record reviews, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program ensuring that the cause of the fruit flies was eliminated and the facility ...
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: 4 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 36 deficiencies on record, including 4 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $20,651 in fines. Higher than 94% of Massachusetts facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Brandon Woods of Dartmouth an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Massachusetts, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth Staffed?
CMS rates Brandon Woods of Dartmouth's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Massachusetts average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth?
State health inspectors documented 36 deficiencies at Brandon Woods of Dartmouth during 2021 to 2025. These included: 4 that caused actual resident harm, 30 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth?
Brandon Woods of Dartmouth 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 ELDER SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 118 certified beds and approximately 96 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SOUTH DARTMOUTH, Massachusetts.
How Does Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth Compare to Other Massachusetts Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Massachusetts, Brandon Woods of Dartmouth's overall rating (2 stars) is below 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 Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Brandon Woods of Dartmouth 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth Stick Around?
Brandon Woods of Dartmouth 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 Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth Ever Fined?
Brandon Woods of Dartmouth has been fined $20,651 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Massachusetts average of $33,285. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Brandon Woods Of Dartmouth on Any Federal Watch List?
Brandon Woods of Dartmouth 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.