VermontNewport

Bel Aire Center

35 Bel-Aire Drive, Newport, VT 05855 · Orleans County · 58 certified beds · avg 45 residents/day · certified since Jan 27, 1995

Part of chain: GENESIS HEALTHCARE (184 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
4
Serious findings on record
$286,973
Fines, last 3 years
3.54
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, repeated · Apr 1, 2026 · F-0726 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.

Why it matters: Undertrained caregivers are more likely to miss warning signs and make care mistakes.

Severity (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.

Corrected: May 6, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Apr 1, 2026 · F-0657 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.

Why it matters: Delays or gaps in care planning mean staff may work without a clear, current roadmap for the resident's daily care and treatment.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: May 6, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 17, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Nov 19, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 2, 2025 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.

Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Sep 26, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (31)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 1, 2026▲ H · Actual harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint
Apr 1, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Apr 1, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint
Sep 2, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
Jul 17, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jul 17, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Jul 17, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Jul 17, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Jul 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Jul 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Jul 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status.
Aug 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Aug 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Aug 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint
Apr 24, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Apr 24, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time.
Apr 24, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Apr 24, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
Apr 24, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Apr 24, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Apr 24, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Apr 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Apr 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Apr 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Apr 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Apr 5, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Apr 5, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Apr 5, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them.
Apr 5, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 7).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202340D
2024140F
2025102G ▲
202632H ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

2 fines totaling $286,973.

DateTypeAmount / length
Apr 1, 2026Fine$207,900
Jul 17, 2025Fine$79,073

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityVermont avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.544.343.95bottom 10% in Vermont; bottom 39% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.680.820.69bottom 36% in Vermont; top 38% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.253.763.50bottom 16% in Vermont; bottom 45% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.660.520.48top 26% in Vermont; top 18% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)59.355.445.8bottom 45% in Vermont; bottom 17% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)58.339.942.9bottom 16% in Vermont; bottom 24% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.65, RN 0.70, weekend 3.36. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Fc-Gen Operations Investment LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest02/02/2015
Gen Operations I LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest02/02/2015
Gen Operations II LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest02/02/2015
Genesis Healthcare INCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest02/02/2015
Genesis Healthcare LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest02/02/2015
Genesis Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest02/02/2015
Genesis Operations LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest03/01/2009
Genesis VT Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%03/01/2009
GHC Holdings LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest04/01/2011
Sun Healthcare Group INCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest02/02/2015
Whitman, ArnoldIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest02/02/2015
Berg, MichaelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/02/2015
Bridgeford, LauraIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2024
Genesis Operations LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/10/2025
Hayati, ZabiIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/02/2020
Hayati, ZabiIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/10/2025
Mayhew, Rose MaryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mayhew, Rose MaryIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/10/2025
Mendelson, AviIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2024
Morris, DianeIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Maple Lane Nursing Home10.8 miBarton, VT★★★★★5/5
Union House Nursing Home19.2 miGlover, VT★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 2 closest →

All facilities in Newport →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 475049.