BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER

10 BERKSHIRE ROAD, WEST BABYLON, NY 11704 (631) 587-0600
For profit - Limited Liability company 175 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
53/100
#377 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: August 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack among similar facilities. It ranks #377 out of 594 nursing homes in New York, placing it in the bottom half, and #34 out of 41 in Suffolk County, indicating limited options for better care nearby. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, having gone from 3 issues in 2020 to 4 in 2024. Staffing is relatively stable with a turnover rate of 30%, which is better than the state average, but it only has an average RN coverage level. On the downside, there are concerning incidents, such as a resident who fell and fractured a leg due to insufficient assistance during a transfer, and failures to report and investigate allegations of resident abuse properly. These weaknesses highlight the need for families to carefully consider the risks alongside the facility's better staffing metrics.

Trust Score
C
53/100
In New York
#377/594
Bottom 37%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
30% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$8,512 in fines. Lower than most New York facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New York. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
○ Average
7 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2020: 3 issues
2024: 4 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (30%)

    18 points below New York average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below New York average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 30%

16pts below New York avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $8,512

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 7 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews during the Abbreviated Survey (complaint #NY00347913) completed on 10/30/20...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews during the Abbreviated Survey (complaint #NY00347913) completed on 10/30/2024, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment were reported to the New York State Department of Health, or the local law enforcement as required. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). Specifically, an allegation was reported to the facility by Staff Member #1 that they witnessed Certified Nursing Assistant #1 hitting Resident #1 with their elbow. The facility did not report the allegation within two hours to the New York State Department of Health or the local law enforcement as required. The findings are: The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention and Reporting with a revision date of 2023 documented Federal & State Regulations require the reporting of alleged violations of abuse, mistreatment and neglect, including injuries of unknown origin, immediately to the Administrator and to the Department of Health. CMS (Center for Medicare/Medicaid) has defined immediately as, as soon as possible, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury . Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle wasting, multiple myeloma and anxiety disorder. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 5/15 indicating severe cognition deficit. The resident was sometimes understood with ability limited to making concrete requests and sometimes understood others. A grievance form, titled Grievance Form / Missing Property Report, dated 7/3/2024 documented that Staff Member #1 reported to the facility that they observed Certified Nursing Assistant #1 providing care to the resident who was screaming and pushing themselves back and grabbing onto the Certified Nursing Assistant #1's pant legs. The report documented Staff Member #1 stated that they observed the Certified Nursing Assistant utilizing their elbow to help secure the resident's left leg, while attempting to provide care. The grievance form documented, a conclusion that it was determined that all care was being provided appropriately. The grievance form documented the Administrator reviewed the form on 7/5/2024. There was no documented evidence that the facility reported the alleged abuse within the 2-hour requirement to the New York State Department of Health or to local law enforcement as required. During an interview on 10/10/2024 at 12:15PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated they completed a grievance form because Grievances are family care concerns and there were no signs of abuse from the allegation, so it became a resident care concern. The Assistant Director of Nursing stated it wasn't reported because there were no signs of abuse. During an interview on 10/15/2024 at 4:45PM, the Director of Nursing Services stated the allegation was not reported because it was determined that abuse did not occur. During an interview on 10/16/2024 at 12:47PM with the Administrator, they stated that they did not report the allegation of abuse to the New York State Department of Health or to local law enforcement as required because they did not believe abuse occurred or there was any reasonable cause to believe abuse occurred based on what Staff Member #1 reported. Administrator agreed all allegations of abuse should be reported as required. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 1:17PM, Resident #1's Medical Doctor stated he could not recall if the facility notified them of the abuse allegation because they did not document it, so they refrained from additional comment. 10 NYCRR 415.4 b (2)
Aug 2024 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

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 observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 8/14/2024 and completed on 8/...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 8/14/2024 and completed on 8/20/2024, the facility did not ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents. This was identified for one (Resident #71) of eight residents reviewed for Accidents. Specifically, Resident #71 required the assistance of two staff members for bed mobility as per the Rehabilitation Department screening on 1/4/2024 and 4/4/2024. The resident's comprehensive care plan and nursing care instructions for the Certified Nursing Assistants were not updated to reflect the Rehabilitation Department's recommendations. During the morning care on 6/24/2024, Certified Nursing Assistant #5 turned the resident on their side to clean the resident's back and the resident fell out of the bed. Subsequently, Resident #71 was transferred to the hospital and was diagnosed with a fracture of the right leg. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #71 that is not Immediate Jeopardy. The finding is: The facility's policy titled Rehabilitation Evaluations/Screens/Assessments, last reviewed January 2022, documented the purpose is to ensure the resident receives Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech Therapy evaluation upon admission, quarterly, and as necessary to obtain the resident's baseline function, improve or maintain status, and set appropriate goals/outcome to obtain optimal performance. The undated facility's policy titled Activities of Daily Living documented appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out Activities of Daily Living independently, in accordance with the plan of care, including appropriate support and assistance with hygiene and mobility. For a dependent resident: the helper does all of the effort; the resident does none of the effort to complete the activity; or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity. Resident #71 was admitted with diagnoses including Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, and Hypertension. The 4/6/2024 Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 6, indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was dependent on staff for rolling from lying on their back to the left or right side. The Rehabilitation Department's quarterly screens dated 1/4/2024 and 4/4/2024 documented the resident required maximum assistance of two people for bed mobility (the ability of the resident to move from their back to the left or right side when in bed). A Comprehensive Care Plan titled Activities of Daily Living All Tasks, effective 8/5/2022 and last updated on 4/4/2024, documented the resident required partial/moderate physical assistance of one staff member for bed mobility (the ability of the resident to move from their back to the left or right side when in bed). There was no documented evidence the Rehabilitation Department updated the Activities of Daily Living All Task care plan to include two person assistance for bed mobility. The Resident Nursing Instructions (care instructions provided to Certified Nursing Assistants) from 6/1/2024 through 6/30/2024 documented Resident #71 required one-person partial/moderate physical assistance for bed mobility. The resident had the behavior of yelling and screaming. A review of the Certified Nursing Assistant Accountability Record for June 2024 documented bed mobility was performed by one staff member through 6/24/2024 as indicated by staff signatures. A nursing progress note dated 6/24/2024 at 2:24 PM, written by Registered Nurse #2 (the Risk Manager), documented this writer was called to assess the resident who was on the floor. While Certified Nursing Assistant #5 was providing care to the resident (at 11:15 AM), the resident began reaching for their stuffed animal, which was on the nightstand table near the bed. The resident reached too far and rolled out of bed onto the floor before Certified Nursing Assistant #5 could reach the resident. Upon assessment, the resident was observed with a deformity to their right lower extremity and was complaining of pain. A Nurse Practitioner who was present in the building, assessed the resident and observed obvious deformity to their right lower extremity. Resident complained of pain from the right hip to the right ankle. 911 was called and the resident was transferred to the hospital. A nursing progress note dated 6/24/2024 at 3:16 PM documented the resident was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of a fracture of their right lower extremity. A review of the Accident and Incident Investigation dated 6/24/2024, prepared by Registered Nurse #2 (the Risk Manager) concluded the resident was reaching for a stuffed animal. The resident reached too far and rolled out of bed onto the floor before the Certified Nursing Assistant could prevent the fall. All care plan interventions were investigated to have been in place. The interdisciplinary team and medical services are in agreement that there was no evidence of any abuse, mistreatment, neglect, or exploitation. The hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] documented the resident was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] with a fracture of their right tibia/fibula (lower leg bones). A Nurse Practitioner readmission note dated 6/27/2024 at 4:06 PM documented the resident was readmitted from the hospital with a right tibia/fibula fracture and the right lower extremity had a cast from mid-femur (bone in thigh) to mid-foot. During an observation on 8/19/2024 at 12:15 PM, Resident #71 was in the day room waiting for lunch. The resident had a cast on their right leg. The resident stated they had a fall; however, could not remember how. During an interview with the Rehabilitation Director on 8/19/2024 at 1:44 PM, the Rehabilitation Director stated Rehabilitation Department screens are completed quarterly and as needed. The quarterly screens dated 1/4/2024 and 4/4/2024 for Resident #71 documented the resident required maximum assistance of two staff members for bed mobility. The care that the Certified Nursing Assistants provide is based on the Rehabilitation Department assessment. The Therapist completing the assessment should update the resident's All-Task Activities of Daily Living care plans based on their assessment. Once the care plan is updated, the recommendations and instructions are automatically documented on the Resident Nursing Instructions. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant #5 on 8/19/2024 at 2:22 PM, they stated the resident was dependent on them for bed mobility. On 6/24/2024 they were providing morning care alone for the resident, which included washing their face, changing their brief, combing their hair, and getting them dressed. Resident #71 reached for their stuffed animal on the bedside table when they (Certified Nursing Assistant #5) turned the resident to their left side to clean the resident's back. Certified Nursing Assistant #5 stated they tried to support the resident, but the resident fell out of bed. Certified Nursing Assistant #5 stated the resident required one person's assistance for the bed as per the Resident Nursing Instructions. Certified Nursing Assistant #5 stated they worked with the resident prior to the fall on 6/24/2024 and always provided care by themselves. During an interview with Physical Therapist #1 on 8/19/2024 at 2:30 PM, stated they completed the quarterly Rehabilitation screening for Resident #71 on 1/4/2024 and 4/4/2024. According to their assessment, the resident required the maximum assistance of two staff members for bed mobility. Physical Therapist #1 stated the resident's care plan should have reflected the resident required two persons for the bed mobility as per the recommendations made on the Rehabilitation screens. Physical Therapist #1 stated their recommendation to use two staff for bed mobility was based on their assessment and observation of the resident while the resident was in bed. Physical Therapist #1 stated they were supposed to update the All-Task Activities of Daily Living care plan to reflect their recommendations to use two staff members for bed mobility. Physical Therapist #1 stated they screen many residents a day and try to make sure that everything matches; however, they could not remember why the care plan for Resident #71 was not updated in January 2024 and April 2024 after they completed the Rehabilitation screen. Physical Therapist #1 stated when the Activities of Daily Living care plan is updated, the recommendations are automatically updated on the Resident Nursing Instructions. During a re-interview with the Rehabilitation Director on 8/20/2024 at 8:45 AM, the Rehabilitation Director stated following Resident #71's Rehabilitation screens on 1/4/2024 and 4/4/2024, there was a conversation among the Interdisciplinary Team, which consisted of all Department Heads, during the morning report. The Rehabilitation Director stated even though Physical Therapist #1 documented the resident required two-person assistance for bed mobility, it was not based on the resident's physical needs but because of the resident's behaviors, so the team decided one person was appropriate for bed mobility. The Rehabilitation Director was unable to state the behaviors exhibited by the resident. The Rehabilitation Director stated they were part of the Interdisciplinary Team and were not sure where the discussion regarding the Interdisciplinary Team's decision not to implement the screen findings was documented. The Rehabilitation Director further stated nurses were responsible for updating the care plan related to the Interdisciplinary Team decision. During an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse #5, the unit charge nurse, on 8/20/2024 at 9:57 AM, they stated they attended Interdisciplinary Team meetings for Resident #71 and did not recall any discussions regarding not following the Rehabilitation Department screen assessment recommendation for Resident #71's bed mobility status. Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated the All-Task Activities of Daily Living care plan is a Rehabilitation Department care plan and only the Rehabilitation Department can update that. Resident #71's medical record review revealed no documentation regarding the Interdisciplinary Team's decision to not implement the Rehabilitation screen assessment recommendations/findings. During a re-interview with Physical Therapist #1 on 8/20/2024 at 10:29 AM, when they completed the resident's Rehabilitation screen in January and April 2024, the resident was exhibiting behaviors of reaching out for things, grabbing, and trying to pinch the staff. Physical Therapist #1 stated the resident's behavior was one of the reasons they recommended two-person assistance with bed mobility for Resident #71. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant #6 on 8/20/2024 at 11:31 AM, they stated during the 11:00 PM - 7:00 AM shift, Resident #71 did not help in turning from their back to the left or right side. Certified Nursing Assistant #6 stated they always needed help to turn the resident in bed. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant #7 on 8/20/2024 at 12:07 PM, stated during the 3:00 PM - 11:00 PM shift, they always used two people to turn the resident from their back to the left or right side because the resident had a behavior of hitting the staff during care and the resident did not help with turning. During an interview with Physician #1 on 8/20/2024 at 1:00 PM, Physician #1 stated Resident #71's right leg fracture was the result of the fall from bed on 6/24/2024. During an interview with the Director of Nursing Services on 8/20/2024 at 1:38 PM they stated the Rehabilitation Department is responsible for updating the All-Task Activities of Daily Living care plan. The Director of Nursing Services stated based on the Rehabilitation screening evaluation, the resident required two staff members for bed mobility and if there was a discussion by the Interdisciplinary Team to not implement the assessment findings, the reasons should have been documented in the resident's medical record. They stated Certified Nursing Assistant #5 followed the instructions written on the Resident Nursing Instructions and cared for the resident alone on 6/24/2024. 10 NYCRR 415.12(h)(2)
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY 00322088) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY 00322088) initiated on [DATE] and completed on [DATE], the facility did not have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, and mistreatment. This was identified for one (Resident #360) of eight residents reviewed for Accident. Specifically, Resident #360 with impaired cognition was found on the floor on [DATE]. The incident was reported to the facility staff by the resident's roommate. The facility did not obtain a statement from the resident's roommate to identify the root cause of the incident. Additionally, the Accident and Incident investigation summary indicated Licensed Practical Nurse #5 observed the resident on the floor; however, the written statement provided by the Licensed Practical Nurse indicated they were caring for another resident at the time of the incident and the inconsistency was not addressed by the facility. The finding is: The facility's undated policy titled Accident/Incident Investigation Management documented that statements, when appropriate, will be obtained from witnesses and others who may have knowledge of the event, for example, other residents. When possible, statements must be written and signed by the person involved. The Supervisor should review for sufficient detail. Resident #360 was admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Chronic Atrial Fibrillation, and Fracture of the Lumbar Vertebra (lower spine). The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 10 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was usually able to understand others. A Comprehensive Care Plan for Falls dated [DATE] last revised on [DATE] documented that the resident was at risk for falls/injuries secondary to a history of falls, Alzheimer's Disease. and impaired gait. Interventions included to place the call bell within easy reach at all times, encourage the resident to call for assistance, and provide anti-skid socks. The care plan interventions were updated on [DATE] to include toileting every 2-4 hours and as needed while awake. An Accident and Incident Report dated [DATE] at 12:30 PM documented that Resident #360 fell in their room. Resident #360 stated they were sitting and slid down off their bed. The Accident and Incident Report did not identify who initially reported Resident #360's fall. A nursing progress note dated [DATE], written by Registered Nurse #6, documented that at approximately 12:30 PM, Registered Nurse #6 was notified that Resident #360 was found on the floor. Upon assessment, the resident was lying supine on the floor on the left side of their bed with no injuries noted. Resident #360 complained of pain in the left lower posterior (back) leg. The Nurse Practitioner was notified and ordered neuro checks (evaluates brain and nervous system functioning) as per facility protocol and an x-ray of the left tibia and fibula (lower leg bones) related to pain. The summary of the investigation dated [DATE] documented that on [DATE], Resident #360 was observed on the floor on the left side of their bed by staff (Licensed Practical Nurse #5) after the resident's roommate reported that the resident was on the floor. Registered Nurse #6 responded and assessed the resident. Resident #360 stated they slid off the bed. The call bell was within reach and was not activated. Resident #360 requested to be toileted during the nursing assessment. Toileting was provided. The investigation concluded that there was no cause to believe abuse, mistreatment, or neglect had occurred. The facility investigation did not include a written statement from Resident #360's roommate who had initially reported the incident. The written statement from Licensed Practical Nurse #5 dated [DATE] documented that they were assisting another resident at the time of the incident. Resident #360's roommate, who had reported the incident, had expired and therefore was not interviewed. Licensed Practical Nurse #5 was interviewed on [DATE] at 1:21 PM and stated they were the nurse on duty along with Registered Nurse #6 on Unit East B on [DATE]. Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated that the incident occurred around lunchtime and most of the nursing staff would be in the dining room assisting residents with their meals. Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated they were in the dining room and did not receive any report from Resident #360's roommate about the resident's fall. Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated they did not go into Resident #360's room and did not observe the resident on the floor. Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated they also did not notify Registered Nurse #6 of Resident #360's fall and did not know who did. Licensed Practical Nurse #5 stated that if they had responded to Resident #360's roommate's call for help and had notified the Registered Nurse, they would include that information in their statement. The Accident and Incident investigation report did not include statements from other staff members who allegedly responded to the roommate's call for help and who had notified Registered Nurse #6 to assess Resident #360 on [DATE]. Registered Nurse #6, who no longer works in the facility, was interviewed on [DATE] at 12:43 PM. Registered Nurse #6 stated they were the Unit Manager at the time of the incident related to Resident #360. Registered Nurse #6 stated the unit charge nurses were responsible for initiating Accident and Incident reports. Resident #360's Accident and Incident report was completed by them (Registered Nurse #6) because they were helping the nurse. Registered Nurse #6 stated they did not obtain statements from staff or residents because the Risk Manager was responsible for investigating the Accidents and Incidents and obtaining the statements. Risk Manager #1, who no longer works at the facility, was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:53 PM. Risk Manager #1 stated they were responsible for investigating Resident #360's fall incident that occurred on [DATE]. Risk Manager #1 stated that if the resident's roommate was mentioned in the investigation summary, then the roommate should have been interviewed and their statement should have been attached to the Accident and Incident report. Risk Manager #1 stated they did not recall if they obtained a statement from Licensed Practical Nurse #5 and if the statement was consistent with the investigation report summary. Risk Manager #1 stated the Director of Nursing Services was ultimately responsible for reviewing the Accident/Incident report for completeness. Risk Manager #2 was interviewed on [DATE] at 4:14 PM. Risk Manager #2 reviewed the Accident and Incident report and stated that an interview with Resident #360's roommate should have been attempted and documented. Risk Manager #2 stated if inconsistency in a staff's statement was identified then a follow-up interview should have been conducted and documented. Risk Manager #2 stated that Resident #360's Accident and Incident was missing a statement from the resident's roommate and Licensed Practical Nurse #5's statement was inconsistent with the investigative summary. The Director of Nursing Services was interviewed on [DATE] at 1:10 PM and stated all Accident and Incident reports should be reviewed and investigated thoroughly. The Director of Nursing Services was unable to locate a statement from Resident #360's roommate and a statement from the staff member who was first notified of the incident, involving Resident #360, by the resident's roommate. The Director of Nursing Services stated they trusted Risk Manager #1 and did not see why it was important to figure out and obtain a statement from the person who first saw the resident on the floor. 10 NYCRR 415.4 (b) (3)
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 8/14/2024 and complete...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 8/14/2024 and completed on 8/20/2024, the facility did not ensure that each resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing. This was identified for one (Resident # 95) of two residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, Resident #95 had a history of a Pressure Ulcer of the Sacral (the portion of the spine between the lower back and tailbone) Region. Resident #95 had a physician's order for an alternating-pressure air mattress. During multiple observations, the adjustable weight setting for the air mattress, which is meant to correspond to the resident's weight, was not set accurately. The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure titled Alternating Pressure/Low Air Loss Mattress, last revised on 10/2023, documented that an alternating pressure/low air loss mattress will be used to maintain adequate circulation to the skin at pressure areas, to prevent the development of skin ulcers in residents with little or no mobility, and to assist in the treatment of skin ulcers. Maintenance will apply the air mattress to the bed frame. Nurses or Maintenance will adjust the pressure control knob to the appropriate setting based on the Resident's weight. The operation manual for the alternating-pressure air mattress documented instructions for setting up the pump with a control knob that adjust the pressure of the mattress with the weight of the resident. Resident #95 was admitted to the facility with Diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes, Venous Insufficiency, and Chronic History of Stage 4 Pressure Ulcer of the Sacral region (the portion of the spine between the lower region back and tailbone). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS)assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated Resident #95 had intact cognition. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented that Resident #95 had a Venous (wound caused by a damaged vein) ulcer on the left posterior (back) thigh. A Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 5/22/2024 and renewed on 8/15/2024 documented that Resident #95 had a skin breakdown on the left posterior thigh and Moisture Associated Skin Damage (MASD) wound over sacral scarring related to impaired mobility and a history of pressure ulcers. Interventions included an air mattress, the use of skin protectant when performing care, providing supplements, and applying treatments as ordered by the Physician. A physician's order dated 8/31/2023 and renewed on 8/13/2024 documented utilizing an Alternating Air Mattress when in bed. A physician's order dated 8/12/2024 documented cleaning the left posterior thigh with normal saline followed by Calcium Alginate (a dressing that absorbs moisture) and abdominal pad dressing twice a day. A physician's order dated 8/15/2024 documented discontinuing the Calcium Alginate and applying Calmoseptine (a moisture barrier ointment) 0.44 percent to 20.6 percent ointment to the left posterior thigh and covering the wound with an abdominal pad every shift. A physician's order dated 8/12/2024 documented cleaning the sacrum with normal saline followed by Collagen (a dressing that breaks inflammation) and Calcium Alginate covered with an abdominal pad and paper tape daily. A review of the electronic medical record indicated that Resident #95's most recent weight dated 7/29/2024 was 176 pounds. A Wound Care Report dated 8/15/2024 documented that Resident #95's wound on the sacrum measured 1 centimeter in length, 2 centimeters in width, and 0.1 centimeters in depth. The wound had serous (yellow or transparent) discharge and a superficial cluster of open areas over scarred tissue. A Wound Care Report dated 8/15/2024 documented that Resident #95's wound on the left posterior (back) thigh had less maceration (softening and breaking down of skin from prolonged exposure to moisture) but remained denuded (exposed raw tissue) and no discharge. The treatment was changed to Calmoseptine ointment after cleaning with normal saline and covering with an abdominal pad every shift. On 8/14/2024 at 9:47 AM, Resident #95 was observed in bed. The air mattress control knob was set at 300 pounds. On 8/14/2024 at 1:45 PM, Resident #95 was observed in bed. The air mattress control knob was set at 300 pounds. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 was interviewed on 8/16/2024 at 2:00 PM and stated they were only responsible for checking if the mattress was deflated. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated they would inform the Nurses and Maintenance if there were any problems with the air mattress. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 stated the nurses were responsible for maintaining the air mattress weight setting. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 was interviewed on 8/16/2024 at 2:15 PM and stated they do not check the air mattress weight setting for Resident #95. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated the Wound Care Nurse was responsible for checking and monitoring the air mattresses. Registered Nurse #3, the Wound Care Nurse, was interviewed on 8/16/2024 at 3:00 PM and stated when the air mattress is first installed, they set up the air mattress control knob according to the Resident's weight. Registered Nurse #3 stated they do a monthly audit on the air mattress including the weight setting. Registered Nurse #3 stated the Nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants would inform them (Registered Nurse #3) with any malfunction on the air mattress. Registered Nurse #3 stated there is no documentation that a certain discipline monitored the air mattress. The Wound Care Nurse Practitioner was interviewed on 8/19/2024 at 12:03 PM and stated the air mattress should correspond to Resident #95's weight. The Wound Care Nurse Practitioner stated the facility was responsible for monitoring the air mattress. The Director of Nursing Staff was interviewed on 8/19/2024 at 2:15 PM and stated they do not have any issues with the air mattress in the facility. The Director of Nursing Services stated the Nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants were aware to inform the Wound Care Nurse and Maintenance of any concerns with the air mattress. The Director of Nursing Staff stated the Nurses should have been aware that monitoring the air mattress was a nursing responsibility. 10 NYCRR 415.12(c)(1)
Sept 2020 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the Recertification Survey, the facility did not ensure each res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the Recertification Survey, the facility did not ensure each resident is treated with respect and dignity and is cared for in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhance his or her quality of life. This was identified for one (Resident #82) of one resident reviewed for dignity. Specifically, Resident #82 was observed in bed, and her right foot wound was being assessed by a Physician in full view from the hallway. The door was open, and the curtains were not drawn. The finding is: Resident #82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Osteomyelitis (infection in a bone)/Right Foot Unstageable Pressure Ulcer. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS)assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 3 which indicated severely impaired cognition. During an observation conducted on 9/17/20 at 11:45 AM, Resident #82 was observed in bed, dressing to right foot open and the Physician assessing the resident's right heel wound. The resident's room door was open, and the curtain was not drawn to provide privacy. The Physician was interviewed immediately on 9/17/20 at 11:45 AM, he stated that he was checking the resident's wound. The Physician stated to ensure patient privacy is maintained that he should have closed the door. the Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor was interviewed on 11/17/20 at 11:54 AM, she stated privacy is paramount for the resident during care or with any procedure. The RN stated that the Physician should have closed the door or drawn the curtain to provide resident privacy. the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 9/24/20 at 12:38 PM, she stated that the Physician should have pulled the curtains and or closed the door to provide privacy for the resident. 415.3(c)(1)(i)
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews during a Recertification survey, the Facility did not ensure that each Resident's co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews during a Recertification survey, the Facility did not ensure that each Resident's comprehensive care plan (CCP) is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team. This was noted for one (Resident #87) out of 26 reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #87, the CCP for the Psychotropic Drug use was not reviewed and revised to reflect the addition (7/9/20) and discontinuation (7/12/20) of Risperdal (a Psychotropic medication). The Finding is: Resident #87 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Anxiety and Depression. A Physician's order dated 7/9/20 documented Risperdal 1 milligram (mg) by mouth for Psychosis. A Physician's order dated 7/12/20 documented to discontinue Risperdal. A CCP for Discomfort and Side Effects related to the use of Antipsychotic medications dated 5/28/20 was updated on 8/20/20. The Problem, Goal, Interventions, and Outcome Evaluation sections were not updated to reflect the Risperdal use from 7/9/20 to 7/12/20 including the reason for discontinuation. The unit Charge Registered Nurse (RN) was interviewed on 9/21/20 at 2:40 PM. The RN stated that Risperdal was started for Resident #87 due to increase in behaviors and was discontinued after a fall. The RN stated that he was responsible for CCP development and revisions and should have updated the CCP for Resident #87 to reflect the addition and reasons for discontinuation of the Risperdal. 415.11(c)(2)(i-iii)
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 observations and staff interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 9/24/20, the facility did not ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 9/24/20, the facility did not ensure that all medications and biologicals were stored and labeled properly. This was evident during observations conducted for the Medication Storage and Labeling Task for 1 of the 2 units observed. Specifically, the Unit East B Treatment Cart had topical medication bottles and tubes that were open and not labeled with the date opened. The finding is: The Policy and Procedure dated September 2019 documented to date and initial all bottles, jars upon opening. During an observation of the Unit East B Treatment Cart with the Registered Nurse (RN) #2 on 9/18/20 at 10:53 AM, the Dyna Gel wound care gel, Muscle Rub for pain both opened and not dated; Ketoconazole Cream for fungal treatment, H-Chlor 12 Topical 0.125% antiseptic solution, Hy[DATE].25% Topical antiseptic solution, Betadine antiseptic bottle, all used, half-empty, and not labeled. RN #2, Unit East B Charge Nurse, was interviewed on 9/18/20 at 10:56 AM and stated that he was not sure if the opened and unlabeled medications were still being used for any resident. RN #2 stated that the medication tubes and bottles were not labeled and that is why he did not know which resident the opened medications belonged to. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 9/18/20 at 11:46 AM and stated that when treatment medications are received from the pharmacy, they are all labeled, the medications should be thrown away if they are not labeled. The DNS stated that the staff is expected to date the stock medication when they are first opened and ensure that the medications received from the pharmacy are labeled. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 9/24/20 at 11:27 AM and stated that stock medications should be dated once they are opened and the medications that are used and not labeled should be discarded. 415.18(e)(1-4)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • 30% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 7 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 53/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within New York, 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 Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 7 deficiencies at BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER during 2020 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 6 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?

BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 175 certified beds and approximately 163 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WEST BABYLON, New York.

How Does Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center?

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 Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER 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 New York. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 30%, which is about average for New York nursing homes (state average: 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 Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $8,512 across 1 penalty action. This is below the New York average of $33,164. 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 Berkshire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

BERKSHIRE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER 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.