Bayberry Commons
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Bayberry Commons in Pascoag, Rhode Island, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's overall quality and care. It ranks #61 out of 72 in the state and #32 out of 41 in Providence County, placing it in the bottom half for both rankings. While the facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 10 in 2024 to 7 in 2025, the overall performance remains poor, with 20 deficiencies noted in recent inspections, including critical incidents related to resident safety and care. Staffing is one of the brighter aspects, with a 4 out of 5 star rating and a turnover rate of 38%, which is better than the state average. However, the facility has also faced serious findings, including a failure to protect residents from sexual abuse and not notifying physicians when a resident's condition changed significantly, raising concerns about resident safety and quality of care.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Rhode Island
- #61/72
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Rhode Island's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $51,948 in fines. Higher than 68% of Rhode Island facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Rhode Island. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Rhode Island average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Rhode Island average (3.0)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Rhode Island avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provided services that meet professional standards of quality for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for a psychiat...
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 surveyor observation, record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records for all residents that are accurately documented in accord...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's drug regimen was reviewed and acted upon by the attending physician, when irregularit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 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
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 interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive car...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
2 deficiencies
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to immediately consult with the resi...
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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality relative to following physician's orders for 1 of 1 resident revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2024
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff and resident interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
2 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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents reviewed...
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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records that are accurately documented in accordance with professional standards and pra...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure tha...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
6 deficiencies
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 and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice ...
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
Based on surveyor observation, record review, resident and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, record review, staff and resident interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive assessmen...
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** Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that the assessment accura...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the transmiss...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards o...
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 F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from any significant medication errors for 1 of 1 dialysis resident review...
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 F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on surveyor observation and staff interview, it has been determined that the facility failed to store and label drugs and biological's in accordance with currently accepted professional principl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 38% turnover. Below Rhode Island's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $51,948 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $51,948 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Rhode Island. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Bayberry Commons's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Bayberry Commons an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Rhode Island, 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 Bayberry Commons Staffed?
CMS rates Bayberry Commons's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Rhode Island average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Bayberry Commons?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at Bayberry Commons during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 17 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Bayberry Commons?
Bayberry Commons 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 110 certified beds and approximately 97 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Pascoag, Rhode Island.
How Does Bayberry Commons Compare to Other Rhode Island Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Rhode Island, Bayberry Commons's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bayberry Commons?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the substantiated abuse finding on record.
Is Bayberry Commons Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Bayberry Commons has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Rhode Island. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Bayberry Commons Stick Around?
Bayberry Commons has a staff turnover rate of 38%, which is about average for Rhode Island 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 Bayberry Commons Ever Fined?
Bayberry Commons has been fined $51,948 across 3 penalty actions. This is above the Rhode Island average of $33,598. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Bayberry Commons on Any Federal Watch List?
Bayberry Commons 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.