Home / Massachusetts / Brookline
99 Park Street, Brookline, MA 02146 · Norfolk County · (617) 901-8365
120 certified beds, about 98 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225509 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 18, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
None of its 33 health citations since November 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.58 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.67 of those hours.
34.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Careone, an affiliated group of 37 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a dignified existence for four Residents (#4, #20, #116 and #6) out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically,For Residents #4 and #20 the facility failed to maintain a dignified experience during meals by leaving the tray in front of the Resident for an extended period of time before providing assistance and standing over the Resident while assisting with the meal. For Resident #116 the facility failed to ensure that the Resident's chest was not visible from the hallway. For Resident #6 the facility failed to ensure that the Resident's privacy was maintained when their brief was visible from the hallway.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, were provided for three Residents (#88, #68 and #14) out of sample of 25 residents. Specifically,For Resident #88 the facility failed to properly label and store respiratory supplies and failed to administered oxygen as per the physician's orders. For Resident #68 and Resident #14 the facility failed to properly label and store respiratory supplies.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were secured on two out of three Resident units. Specifically, medication carts were unlocked on the first floor and second floor.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment during dining on one of three Resident units. Specifically, on the second-floor unit, residents were observed eating meals on meal trays in the dining room.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a care plan for one Resident (#2) out of a total sample of 25 residents. Specifically, for Resident #2, the facility failed to implement a care plan for a knee immobilizer.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to address recommendations from the dialysis center. Specifically, the facility failed to notify the physician of dialysis recommendations for one Resident #10 out of a sample of 25 Residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for three Residents (#14, #10 and #2) out of a total sample of 25 Residents. Specifically,For Resident #14, the medical record failed to accurately indicate necessary care to be provided to a tracheostomy tube. For Resident #10, the facility failed to accurately document blood pressure taken. For Resident #2 the facility failed to a. document accurately for the application of a knee brace and, b. accurately document a treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that concerns addressed by the Resident Council Group had sufficient follow-up to address and prevent recurrence.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident protected health information (PHI) was secure and not visible to others on two of three nursing units.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards of practice for 5 Residents (#55, #87, #4, #252, #13) out of a total of 24 sampled residents. Specifically, 1. For Resident #55, the facility failed to implement a physician's order to offload heels and to apply waffle boots. 2. For Resident #87, the facility failed to obtain weights as ordered. 3. For Resident #4, the facility failed to ensure nursing implemented a physician's order for weights and failed to document those weights in the electronic health record. 4. For Resident #252, the facility failed to ensure physicians orders were implemented for the monitoring of a peripheral intravenous (IV) site. 5. For Resident 13, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for the care of a central line.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure it was free from a medication error rate of greater than 5% when three out of three nurses observed made seven errors out of 30 opportunities, resulting in a medication error rate of 23.33%. Those errors impacted three Residents (#15, 22 and #48), out of three residents observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly secured. Specifically: 1. The facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended on medication carts, at nurses' stations and in resident rooms. 2. The facility failed to ensure a medication cart was locked when unattended on the 3rd floor. 3. The facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended at the bedside for Resident #4. 4. The failed to ensure medications were labeled with date opened. 5. The failed to ensure medications were not left unattended on top if the medication cart. 6. For Resident #201, the facility failed to ensure medication was not stored at bedside.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately document in the clinical records for 4 residents (#30, #67, #77 and #1) of 24 sampled residents. Specifically: 1. For Resident #30, the facility failed to document diabetic foot care. 2. For Resident #67, the facility inaccurately documented O2 (oxygen) tubing changed when it was not. 3. For Resident #77, the facility inaccurately documented a hand splint/brace was on when it was not. 4. For Resident #1, the facility failed to ensure staff documented the administration of medications. Review of the Documentation of Medication Administration policy dated November 2022 indicated: A medication administration record is used to document all medications administered. Documentation of medication administration includes . [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that one Resident (#201) did not self-administer medications out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, Resident #201 was not assessed to be able to safely self-administer medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff developed and implemented a baseline care plan for one Resident (#201) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop a care plan within 48 hours of the resident's admission, which included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care to the resident which meet professional standards of quality care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interview the facility failed to implement resident-centered care plans for one Resident (#77) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Resident #77 the facility failed to implement the use of a hand brace and failed to assist with trimming fingernails.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team for one Resident (#14) out of a total sample of 24 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) for 3 dependent Residents (#14, #77 and #15) out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Resident #14, cut fingernails and remove unwanted chin hair. 2. For Resident #77, cut fingernails. 3. For Resident #15, remove unwanted chin hair.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a meaningful activity program for one Resident (#44) out of a total of 24 sampled residents
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide respiratory care services in accordance with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#67) out of a total sample of 24 Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen filter was clean and the oxygen tubing changed as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for one Resident (#4) out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, for Resident #4 the facility failed to administer the correct dose of a lidocaine patch (topical pain patch that comes in different strengths) and apply the lidocaine patch to the correct location.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed develop a trauma-informed care plan to address the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for one Resident (#201) of 24 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to review the consultant pharmacist's recommendations for the monthly medication regimen reviews (MRR) for one Resident (#4), out of a total sample of 24 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff and the physician reviewed the consultant pharmacist's recommendations for Resident #4 from 9/23/24 and 10/25/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow infection control practices to prevent possible spread of infection by failing to follow infection control practices during medication pass.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one Resident (#285) received care in accordance with professional standards of practice, out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure nursing reconciled and transcribed medications from Resident #285's hospital discharge summary accurately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for one Resident (#2) out of a sample of 19 Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide mouth care resulting in thrush on the Resident's tongue.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure quality care was provided for 1 Resident (#29) out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was in place for a resident's wound treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to obtain consent to receive vision services resulting in the Resident not receiving vision services since admission for one Resident (#5) out of a total sample of 19 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was flushed in accordance of professional standards of practice for one Resident (#285) out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, for Resident #285, the facility failed to ensure nursing obtained physician's orders for routine flushes.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure pharmaceutical services met the needs of each resident for one Resident (#285) in a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, for Resident #285 who was admitted to the facility with clostridium difficile (infection that causes diarrhea and inflammation of the colon) and required an antibiotic medication (fidaxomicin), the facility failed to ensure they obtained his/her physician ordered antibiotic medication, as a result Resident #285 was not administered the antibiotic as ordered, and he/she missed 5 doses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to obtain consent to receive dental services resulting in the Resident not receiving dental services since admission for one Resident (#5) out of a total sample of 19 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to transcribe a physician's order accurately for one Resident (#2) out of a sample of 19 Residents. Specifically, the facility failed to accurately document the medication route of administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to post nurse staffing daily, as required.
7 fire safety citations on file: 7 on November 21, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.58 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.40 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.94 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.96 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 34.2% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 64.7% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 3 |
CMS expects 4.02 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.65 on weekdays and 3.40 on weekends, 7% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.01 in April to June 2025 to 3.58 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.58 | 0.67 | 3.65 | 3.40 | 1.5% | 0 of 90 | 98 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.57 | 0.73 | 3.68 | 3.27 | 1.7% | 0 of 92 | 98 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.92 | 0.68 | 4.06 | 3.59 | 10.7% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.01 | 0.69 | 4.17 | 3.60 | 12.3% | 0 of 91 | 92 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Massachusetts, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.79 | 0.61 | 3.94 | 3.41 | 5.0% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $22.44 | $21.32 to $23.94 | 38,130 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $38.57 | $34.91 to $40.66 | 13,210 |
| Registered nurses | $50.27 | $42.05 to $65.44 | 88,200 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Massachusetts | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.6 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.8 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.5 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 31.1 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.2 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.2 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Care One at Brookline's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (66.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
66.1% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Massachusetts: 121 better, 19 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 282 eligible stays.
12.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Massachusetts: 4 better, 15 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 263 eligible stays.
6.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Massachusetts: 5 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 128 eligible stays.
67.5% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts51.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 157 residents counted.
0.4% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 231 residents counted.
0.4% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 231 residents counted.
97.0% this home
Median of homes: Massachusetts99.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 99 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: PARK, MARION AND VERNON STREETS OPERATING COMPANY LLC. CMS links this home to Careone, a group of 37 nursing homes averaging 3.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thci of Massachusetts, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 07/01/2003 | |
| Care Realty, LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/30/2002 | |
| Des-I 2016 Grat | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2021 | |
| Straus, Daniel | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/13/2003 | |
| Baruch, David | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/01/2021 | |
| Baruch, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2021 | |
| Healthbridge Management LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/13/2003 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.