44 Canterbury Road, Brooklyn, CT 06234 (opens Google Maps) · Northeastern Ct County · (860) 774-9050· 72 certified beds · avg 64 residents/day · certified since Mar 31, 1974 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 27, 2026 · 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): 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: May 8, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 27 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint F-0600
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jun 17, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Mar 27, 2026 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Mar 27, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 27, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 27, 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. · F-0842 |
| Mar 27, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 27, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Jun 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. · from a complaint · F-0940 |
| May 5, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Mar 25, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Mar 25, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Jun 18, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 18, 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 |
| Jun 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jun 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
| Jun 18, 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 |
| Jun 18, 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 |
| Jun 18, 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 |
| Nov 3, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Nov 3, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Nov 3, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 17, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · F-0744 |
| Mar 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 6).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $12,735.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2026 | Fine | $12,735 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.73 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 11% in Connecticut; top 18% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.14 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 11% in Connecticut; top 11% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.37 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 11% in Connecticut; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.75 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 11% in Connecticut; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 45.2 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 20% in Connecticut; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 40.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 47% in Connecticut; top 46% 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 4.11, RN 0.99, weekend 3.80.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.11 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pierce Memorial Baptist Home, INC.. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Regional context: $525.78/day — Connecticut statewide average for a semi-private nursing-facility room, September 30, 2025. This is a historical regional figure, not this facility's price or a prediction. View the OPM source.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apicella, Mary | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Avena, Robert | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Baule, Diana | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/10/2015 |
| Chesser, Samuel | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Crane, Micael | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Jones, David | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Kane, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| McMunn, William | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Morse, Mary Patricia | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/05/2014 |
| Morse, Mary Patricia | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2014 |
| Riesen, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Stevens, Sandra | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Thomas, Gregory | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
| Wyand, Charles | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2014 |
All 14 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis Place | 4.2 mi | Danielson, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Colonial Health & Rehab Center of Plainfield, LLC | 7.3 mi | Plainfield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Villa Maria Nursing and Rehabilitation Community | 7.5 mi | Plainfield, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Westview Health Care Center | 7.8 mi | Dayville, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Matulaitis Rehabilitation & Skilled Care | 10.9 mi | Putnam, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Douglas Manor | 12.3 mi | Windham, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Saint Josephs Living Center INC | 13.1 mi | Windham, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Vanderman Place | 15.2 mi | Willimantic, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Mansfield Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation | 15.4 mi | Storrs Mansfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Alpine Nursing Home INC | 16.8 mi | Coventry, RI | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Overlook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 17.2 mi | Pascoag, RI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bayberry Commons | 17.2 mi | Pascoag, RI | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075243.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details