Home / Connecticut / Bristol
61 Bellevue Avenue, Bristol, CT 06010 · Naugatuck Vly County · (860) 589-1682
132 certified beds, about 122 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1972
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075221 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 26, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 27 health citations since February 2020 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 3.65 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.43 of those hours.
39.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to National Health Care Associates, an affiliated group of 42 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 27 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for three of five residents (Residents #5, #6 and #7) reviewed for misappropriation, the facility failed to prevent the misappropriation of the residents' controlled narcotic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to a resident with dementia who required staff assistance, resulting in a fall with injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 5 residents (Resident #59, 63, 72, 121, and 346), reviewed as part of the sufficient competent nurse staffing review, the facility failed to ensure that the physician and resident representatives were immediately notified when medication omissions/errors were identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 7 residents (Resident #59, 63, 68, 72, 85, 121 and 346), the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices. For 1 of 2 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for edema, the facility failed to follow the physician's order for compression stockings. For 2 of 2 residents (Resident #68 and 85) reviewed for edema, the facility failed to ensure the staff monitored the intake and output for a resident on a fluid restriction. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all facility nursing staff were educated on the identifying mechanism for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident council funds, that were raised during fund raising events, had complete and accurate record keeping, and were in an interest-bearing account.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #344) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's medical information and care needs remained private.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR), the facility failed to refer the resident, who had a new mental health diagnosis, to the State-designated authority.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #112) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to administer medications according to professional standards.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure every 15 minute checks were completed after an unwitnessed fall, per physician's order and per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility assessment, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse had the competencies and education to administer IV therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #4) reviewed for a specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure that staff consistently monitored and recorded fluid intake and output for a resident on fluid restriction.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that nurse aides had annual performance evaluations completed for 2024
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #340) reviewed for transmission-based precautions, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff adhered to appropriate infection control techniques for a resident on contact precautions.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one resident of two residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure wounds, the facility failed to ensure care was provide timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, review of the clinical record review and facility policy for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident #2) reviewed for receiving a hemolytic treatment, the facility failed to monitor intake totals for a resident who was exceeding a physician ordered fluid restriction. Resident #2's diagnoses included end stage renal disease, heart failure, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. Physician orders dated 9/1/22 (through 2/2/23) directed a fluid restriction of 800 milliliters (ml) per day and hemodialysis 3 times per week at a dialysis center. The Quarterly Minimum Data Sheet (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #2 was severely cognitively impaired and required one person assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 89) reviewed for dental services, the facility failed to ensure an oral surgeon referral was arranged in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of the Dietary Department and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure a trash receptacle was covered and not in the proximity of clean utensils. On 1/31/23 at 11:55 AM, during a walk-through inspection of the Dietary Department with the Food Service Director (FSD) identified a large gray plastic trash receptacle was observed being stored and partially exposed from under the clean side of a 3 bay sink counter. The trash receptacle had a liner, was uncovered, and approximately 2/3 full of garbage. Above the trash receptacle were several clean serving utensils drying on the 3 bay sink counter. Interview at that time with the FSD indicated the utensils on the counter were clean and identified the trash container should have been covered and in its proper location which was on the soiled side of the 3 bay sink (not on the clean side of the sink). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 3 of 6 residents (Resident #48, 52 and 89) reviewed for dining, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #97) reviewed for resident rights, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or resident's representative were invited to participate in the interdisciplinary care plan meetings.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #89) reviewed for positioning, the facility failed to ensure the resident was positioned for meals to meet the resident's needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #41 and 82) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to provide the necessary supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #36) reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Record Review (PASRR), the facility failed to notify the assessment agency responsible for a PASRR Level 2 determination when the 7 day approval of stay had expired.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility policy and staff interview for 4 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #51, Resident #52, Resident #74 and Resident #80) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to ensure accurate immunization tracking and offer the appropriate pneumonia vaccines as appropriate.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview and observation for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #221) reviewed for environment, the facility failed to ensure Resident #221's call light was within reach.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #49) reviewed for dining, the facility failed to ensure timely assistance with the meal.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #49) reviewed for dining, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided during a meal for a resident with dysphagia.
1 fire safety citation on file: 1 on February 27, 2020.
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 | Connecticut | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.65 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.43 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.29 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.23 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.99 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.8% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 41.2% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.07 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 3.80 on weekdays and 3.29 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.49 in April to June 2025 to 3.65 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 | 3.65 | 0.43 | 3.80 | 3.29 | 5.6% | 0 of 90 | 122 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.66 | 0.47 | 3.79 | 3.33 | 7.0% | 0 of 92 | 125 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.65 | 0.54 | 3.79 | 3.30 | 8.4% | 0 of 92 | 123 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.49 | 0.53 | 3.64 | 3.11 | 5.8% | 0 of 91 | 126 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Connecticut, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.66 | 0.61 | 3.80 | 3.31 | 6.0% | 1.3% 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.53 | $20.14 to $22.68 | 21,380 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $35.43 | $32.05 to $36.94 | 8,540 |
| Registered nurses | $49.39 | $41.40 to $58.58 | 40,110 |
| 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 | Connecticut | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.6 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 34.0 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.4 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Pines at Bristol for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (65.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
65.4% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Connecticut: 75 better, 2 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. 163 eligible stays.
11.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Connecticut: 0 better, 3 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. 185 eligible stays.
6.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Connecticut: 0 better, 2 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. 113 eligible stays.
51.4% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut58.9% · 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. 35 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut0.0% · 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. 146 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut1.6% · 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. 146 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Connecticut100.0% · 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. 3 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: BRISTOL CROSSINGS LLC. CMS links this home to National Health Care Associates, a group of 42 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bnb Health Care Funds LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 7% | 01/01/2013 |
| Cohen, David | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 7% | 09/01/2007 |
| Fuchs, Morris | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 8% | 09/01/2007 |
| Goldenberg, Chaim | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 09/01/2007 |
| Lipman, Michael | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 09/01/2007 |
| Manela, Magda | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 09/01/2007 |
| Roberts, Tzivy | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 7% | 01/01/2014 |
| Binns, Yasmin | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/09/2022 | |
| Ostreicher, Marvin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/26/2007 | |
| Bokow, Barry | General partnership interest | Individual | 09/01/2007 |
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.
These are the official offices in Connecticut. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.