Home / Massachusetts / New Bedford
200 Hawthorn Street, New Bedford, MA 02740 · Bristol County · (774) 319-2868
80 certified beds, about 68 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 225481 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 20, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Massachusetts average is 6.8, the national average 9.2).
Of 31 health citations since December 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $9,318 in the last three years; the largest was $9,318, and the latest is dated April 24, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.45 hours per resident per day, against 3.86 across Massachusetts and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.39 of those hours.
69.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Massachusetts average 38.2%).
CMS links it to Vantage Care, an affiliated group of 10 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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to implement their grievance process and attempt to resolve grievances in a timely manner for one Resident (#25), out of a total sample of 17 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy for injuries of unknown origin for one Resident (#25), out of a total sample of 17 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to report injuries of unknown origin for one Resident #25, out of a total sample of 17 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to investigate injuries of unknown origin for one Resident (#25), out of a total sample of 17 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program which included a complete and accurate system of surveillance to identify any trends or potential infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program which included antibiotic use protocols and monitoring of antibiotic use in accordance with the facility's antibiotic stewardship program.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to develop baseline care plans for two Residents (#78 and #79), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan:1. For Resident #78, that included the necessary care of a colostomy (a surgical procedure where a portion of the large intestine is brought through the abdominal wall to carry stool out of the body) and Foley catheter (a tube inserted through the urinary tract into the bladder, connected to a drainage bag); and2. For Resident #79, that included strategies to mitigate future falls and offer a copy of those care plans to the Resident/healthcare proxy (HCP).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services that met professional standards by failing to implement physician's orders to discontinue Oxycodone (a pain medication), for one Resident (#5), out of a total sample of 17 residents, resulting in Resident #5 receiving the medication for 22 extra days.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that monthly medication regimen reviews (MRR) were communicated to the provider and addressed in a timely manner for one Resident (#5), out of a total sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure recommendations by the pharmacy consultant to clarify two as needed (PRN) albuterol orders (respiratory inhaler), review risk versus benefit of Paxil (Paroxetine, an antidepressant) medication dosing of extended release (ER) 50 milligrams (mg) daily which is over the daily recommended dose of 37.5mg and recommend Narcan order (reverses opioid overdose) as needed (PRN) due to history of recent opioid overdose, was reviewed and responded to by the provider timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate modified texture diet was prepared and served for one test tray. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure broccoli was prepared and served in a form designed to meet the individual needs of Residents on a dysphagia advanced diet.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete medical records for two Residents (#5 and #72), out of a sample of 17 residents. Specifically, the facility failed: 1. For Resident #5, to ensure the medical record accurately reflected advance directives as indicated on the Resident's Massachusetts Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment form (MOLST); and2. For Resident #72, to ensure the medical record included the physician's documentation of encounters with the Resident from May 2025 through August 2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for food safety and sanitation to prevent the potential spread of foodborne illness to residents who are at high risk. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the main kitchen floor was maintained in a sanitary and safe condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement their facility assessment (a document assessing the capability of the facility and its resources to provide both emergency and day to day care of the population the facility currently serves). Specifically, the facility failed to ensure active involvement of all required members when conducting the facility assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and records reviewed, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections for five Residents (#227, #50, #30, #23, and #38), out of a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. For Residents #227, #50, and #30, ensure staff maintained Transmission Based Precautions as indicated; 2. For Resident #23, ensure that the oxygen concentrator was maintained in a clean/sanitary condition; and 3. For Resident #38, ensure that Enhanced Barrier Precautions were maintained as indicated.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Representative was notified of a fall for one Resident (#58), out of a total sample of 18 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the activated Health Care Proxy (HCP- health care agent designated by the resident when competent who has the authority to consent for health care decisions when a resident has been declared, by a physician, not to be competent to make his/her own health care decisions) was notified of an elopement attempt resulting in the Resident wandering to the basement of the building.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure two Residents (#54, #51) were informed of and actively participated in his/her baseline plan of care within the first 48 hours following admission, out of a total sample of 19 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented for one Resident (#72), in a total sample of 19 residents. Specifically, the facility failed for Resident #72, to implement a care plan and individualized interventions related to changes in their mood including crying.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviewed for one Resident (#227) of 19 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, for Resident #227, the facility failed to administer medications as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide showers for two dependent Residents (#23 and #34), in a total sample of 19 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in a safe and secure manner as required. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left unattended in Resident #7's room.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, interviews, and observations, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed by nursing as being at high risk for skin breakdown with actual pressure injuries (localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence which can present as intact skin or an open ulcer and may be painful), the Facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received wound care treatment that was consistent with professional standards of practice when, on 02/11/25, during a dressing change observation, Nurse #1 did not follow Physician's Treatment Orders for Resident #1's dressing change and did not follow facility policy and procedure for wound care. Findings Include: Review of the Facility Policy, titled Non-Sterile Dressing Change, dated August 2016, indicated the following: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed, interviews, and observations, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who required wound care dressing changes to be completed by nursing, the Facility failed to ensure they maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and potential transmission of communicable diseases and infections, when on 02/11/25, during a dressing change observation, Nurse #1 did not utilize the necessary infection control precautions, protocols or procedures, increasing the risk for the spread of an infection. Findings Include: Review of the Facility Policy, titled Non-Sterile Dressing Change, dated August 2016, indicated the following: -Designated staff member will use non-sterile dressing technique for all dressing changes unless otherwise indicated by physician; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews of one of three sampled residents (Resident #3), the Facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical/clinical record when weekly Skin Assessment User Defined Assessments (UDA) were not consistently completed by Nursing, as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was dependent on the physical assistance of staff with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and positioning, the Facility failed to ensure they maintained a complete and accurate medical record, related to Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) ADL Flow Sheets and Positioning Sheets, when daily documentation by CNA's (for all three shifts) was not consistently completed, with flow sheets and positioning sheets left blank.
Inspectors wroteBased on records reviewed and interviews, for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), who was assessed by nursing as being at risk for falls and required the use of a chair alarm in an effort to prevent falls, the Facility failed to ensure his/her assistive devices were functioning properly to prevent incidents and/or accidents resulting in an injury. On 4/07/24 after Resident #1 was found on the floor in the hallway after a fall, it was determined that his/her chair alarm was found to be in the off position and therefore had not sounded to alert staff that he/she was in motion. Resident #1 sustained a laceration to the left side of his/her head, was transferred to the Hospital Emergency Department for evaluation, required staples to close the laceration, was diagnosed with multiple fractures as a result of the fall and was admitted for treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance, and was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for one of two test trays. Specifically, the facility failed to provide a pureed meal that was palatable and visually appealing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a complete and accurate medical record for one Resident (#44), out of a total of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff documented monitoring of a hematoma identified on 4/4/23.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, for one Resident (#55) of 17 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure a reasonable accommodation was made. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the call system button was accessible to the Resident to call for assistance per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, for one Resident (#12) of 17 sampled residents, the facility failed to provide Foley catheter (a flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine outside of the body) care consistent with professional standards related to infection control prevention. Specifically, the facility failed to maintain/secure the Resident's Foley catheter drainage bag away from contaminated surfaces, date his/her catheter bag, and change the Foley catheter device as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure for one Resident (#56) of 17 sampled residents, the facility failed to ensure the Resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs, without adequate monitoring for signs/symptoms of adverse consequences (i.e., side effects) to ensure the safe administration of medications. Specifically, the facility failed to monitor for adverse side effects of an anticoagulant (blood thinning medication to prevent clots), including signs/symptoms of bruising, bleeding, and deep vein thrombosis (DVT-blood clot).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff stored all drugs and biologicals in accordance with facility policy. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure medications were not stored past their expiration and/or discard date.
18 fire safety citations on file: 14 on February 20, 2026, 4 on December 19, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 24, 2024 | Fine | $9,318 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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) | 2.45 | 3.86 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.39 | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 1.90 | 3.48 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.41 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.65 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 69.8% | 38.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 72.7% | 42.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 3 |
CMS expects 4.18 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 2.68 on weekdays and 1.90 on weekends, 29% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 11.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.78 in April to June 2025 to 2.45 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 | 2.45 | 0.39 | 2.68 | 1.90 | 11.9% | 0 of 90 | 68 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.07 | 0.36 | 4.17 | 3.84 | 40.0% | 1 of 92 | 61 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.93 | 0.30 | 4.11 | 3.47 | 38.7% | 0 of 92 | 67 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.78 | 0.31 | 3.96 | 3.32 | 39.0% | 0 of 91 | 71 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 7.9 | 16.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.5 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.1 | 15.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.4 | 21.4 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.0 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.3 | 11.9 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Vantage Health & Rehab of New Bedford's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.5% this home
No different from 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. 123 eligible stays.
12.4% 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. 131 eligible stays.
7.4% 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. 80 eligible stays.
51.4% 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. 109 residents counted.
1.3% 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. 154 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 154 residents counted.
97.6% 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. 82 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: VANTAGE AT NEW BEDFORD LLC. CMS links this home to Vantage Care, a group of 10 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown, Yossi | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 07/03/2024 |
| Yurowitz, Sam | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 07/03/2024 |
| Torres, Efrain | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 07/03/2024 | |
| Spector, Sam | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/03/2024 | |
| Yurowitz, Sam | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/03/2024 |
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.