Brush Hill Care Center
1200 Brush Hill Road, Milton, MA 02186 · Norfolk County · 160 certified beds · avg 134 residents/day · certified since Nov 29, 1983
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$3,418
Fines, last 3 years
3.90
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, one-off · Jul 17, 2023 · F-0656
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.
Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.
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: Oct 29, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 17, 2023 · F-0686
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.
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 18, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 17, 2023 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Oct 29, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (60)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. |
| Nov 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Nov 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. |
| Nov 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not provide its staff with required training on behavioral health — caring for residents with conditions like dementia, depression, or other mental health needs. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Sep 25, 2024 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. |
| Jan 9, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint |
| Jan 9, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Jul 17, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide bedrooms with required basics: a window to the outside, a room at or above ground level, adequate bedding, furniture that fits the resident's needs, or enough closet space. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. |
| Jul 17, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (22 → 4).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 32 | 3 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 24 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 4 | 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)
1 fine totaling $3,418.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2024 | Fine | $3,418 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | Massachusetts avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.90 | 3.89 | 3.95 | top 38% in Massachusetts; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.52 | 0.65 | 0.69 | bottom 35% in Massachusetts; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.58 | 3.51 | 3.50 | top 36% in Massachusetts; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 39% in Massachusetts; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 54.5 | 38.2 | 45.8 | bottom 10% in Massachusetts; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 50.0 | 42.6 | 42.9 | bottom 37% in Massachusetts; bottom 39% 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 3.72, RN 0.49, weekend 3.41. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klein, Gershon | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 07/31/2016 |
| Klein, Tibor | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 07/31/2016 |
| Milton HC Operating LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 07/31/2016 |
| Klein, Gershon | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/28/2016 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
- "How do you decide you have enough staff and resources for your resident population, including nights and weekends?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Care Village at West Roxbury | 2.7 mi | West Roxbury, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Care Village at Mattapan | 3.0 mi | Mattapan, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| German Center for Extended Care | 3.4 mi | Boston, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Ellis Nursing Home (the) | 3.8 mi | Norwood, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Care Village at Parkway | 4.1 mi | Boston, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Boston Home, INC (the) | 4.3 mi | Boston, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Recuperative Services Unit-Hebrew Rehab Center | 4.4 mi | Boston, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Newbridge on the Charles Skilled Nursing Facility | 4.5 mi | Dedham, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Norwood Healthcare | 4.7 mi | Norwood, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Laurel Ridge Rehab and Skilled Care Center | 5.1 mi | Boston, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Hellenic Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 5.2 mi | Canton, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Victoria Haven Nursing Facility | 5.2 mi | Norwood, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225274.