How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Brookside Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center
11 Pontiac Avenue, Webster, MA 01570 (opens Google Maps) · Worcester County · (508) 943-3889· 81 certified beds · avg 68 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1990 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: EPHRAM LAHASKY (22 facilities, chain avg rating 1.8★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jul 30, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Nov 1, 2022
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.29
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 1, 2022 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 1, 2022 · F-0689
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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Dec 16, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 30 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint F-0842
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. F-0584
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. F-0605
View all 30 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0880 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| May 2, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0561 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0656 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0761 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0880 |
| May 2, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Nov 1, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Nov 1, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · F-0838 |
| Nov 1, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · F-0687 |
| Nov 1, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Nov 1, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740 |
| Nov 1, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Nov 1, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report COVID-19 data to residents and their families as required. Facilities must keep residents and families informed about COVID-19 cases. · F-0885 |
| Nov 1, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0887 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (10 → 11).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMassachusetts averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.29
Massachusetts average: 3.89
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.68
Massachusetts average: 0.65
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.98
Massachusetts average: 3.51
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Massachusetts avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.29 | 3.89 | 3.95 | top 22% in Massachusetts; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.69 | top 35% in Massachusetts; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.98 | 3.51 | 3.50 | top 19% in Massachusetts; top 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 41% in Massachusetts; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 41.8 | 38.2 | 45.8 | bottom 35% in Massachusetts; top 41% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 54.5 | 42.6 | 42.9 | bottom 26% in Massachusetts; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 3.88, RN 0.61, weekend 3.60.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.88 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Brookside Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biderman, Michael | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 42% | 05/16/2017 |
| Biderman, Yehuda | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 10% | 05/16/2017 |
| BNB Health Care Funds LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 05/16/2017 |
| Martin, Bradley | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 05/16/2017 |
| Biderman, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/16/2017 |
| Lahasky, Ephram | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/16/2017 |
| Presutti, Mark | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/24/2017 |
All 7 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Ephram Lahasky — 22 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Fitchburg Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Fitchburg, MA · overall 1/5
- Leominster Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Leominster, MA · overall 1/5
- Poet's Seat Healthcare Center — Greenfield, MA · overall 3/5
- Wachusett Manor — Gardner, MA · overall 3/5
- Watertown Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Watertown, MA · overall 1/5
- Calvert County Nursing Ctr. — Prince Frederick, MD · overall 2/5abuse
- Chapel Hill Nursing Center — Randallstown, MD · overall 1/5
- Bayshore Residence and Rehabilitation Center — Duluth, MN · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 21 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 42% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 45 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Webster Manor Rehabilitation & Health Care Center | 1.9 mi | Webster, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lanessa Extended Care | 1.9 mi | Webster, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Overlook Masonic Health Center | 7.7 mi | Charlton, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Life Care Center of Auburn | 8.2 mi | Auburn, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Southbridge Rehabilitation & Health Care Center | 8.5 mi | Southbridge, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Matulaitis Rehabilitation & Skilled Care | 9.4 mi | Putnam, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Meadows of Central Massachusetts (the) | 9.6 mi | Rochdale, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Blackstone Valley Health and Rehabilitation | 11.0 mi | Whitinsville, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Overlook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 11.3 mi | Pascoag, RI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Parsons Hill Rehabilitation & Health Care Center | 12.4 mi | Worcester, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Westview Health Care Center | 12.5 mi | Dayville, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Care One at Millbury | 12.5 mi | Millbury, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Worcester, MA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Christopher House of Worcester — Worcester, MA · overall 3/5
- Countryside Health Care of Milford — Milford, MA · overall 4/5
- Fitchburg Healthcare — Fitchburg, MA · overall 1/5
- Fitchburg Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Fitchburg, MA · overall 1/5
- Gardner Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Gardner, MA · overall 2/5
- Hermitage Healthcare (the) — Worcester, MA · overall 2/5
- Highlands, the — Fitchburg, MA · overall 3/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225483.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).