How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Pines at Bristol for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the
61 Bellevue Avenue, Bristol, CT 06010 (opens Google Maps) · Naugatuck Vly County · (860) 589-1682· 132 certified beds · avg 122 residents/day · certified since Sep 7, 1972 · 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: NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES (42 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 26, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.45
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: 4/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 28 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint F-0602
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
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. F-0580
View all 28 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Feb 20, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 26, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0580 |
| Mar 26, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Mar 26, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Mar 26, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| Mar 26, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Mar 26, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0644 |
| Mar 26, 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. · F-0658 |
| Mar 26, 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. · F-0689 |
| Mar 26, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Mar 26, 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 |
| Mar 26, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 26, 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 |
| Oct 22, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 7, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 2, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Feb 2, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791 |
| Feb 2, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 2, 2023 | 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. · F-0550 |
| Feb 2, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553 |
| Feb 2, 2023 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Feb 2, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 2, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0558 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0677 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 12).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 2 | 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 facilityConnecticut averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.45
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.41
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.11
Connecticut average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50
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) | 3.45 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 34% in Connecticut; bottom 34% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.41 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 14% in Connecticut; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.11 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 32% in Connecticut; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.21 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 8% in Connecticut; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.8 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 39% in Connecticut; top 36% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 41.2 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 44% in Connecticut; top 49% 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 3.65, RN 0.43, weekend 3.29.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.65 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pines at Bristol for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the. 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.
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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNB Health Care Funds LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 01/01/2013 |
| Cohen, David | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 09/01/2007 |
| Fuchs, Morris | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 8% | 09/01/2007 |
| Goldenberg, Chaim | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 09/01/2007 |
| Lipman, Michael | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 09/01/2007 |
| Manela, Magda | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 09/01/2007 |
| Roberts, Tzivy | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 01/01/2014 |
| Binns, Yasmin | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/09/2022 |
| Bokow, Barry | Individual | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2007 |
| Ostreicher, Marvin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/26/2007 |
All 10 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 National Health Care Associates — 42 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.
- Regency House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Wallingford, CT · overall 5/5
- Riverside Health & Rehabilitation Center — East Hartford, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Shady Knoll Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Seymour, CT · overall 2/5
- Sharon Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Sharon, CT · overall 4/5
- Stone Bridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Newtown, CT · overall 4/5
- Summit at Plantsville Center for Health & Rehabili — Plantsville, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Village Crest Center for Health & Rehabilitation — New Milford, CT · overall 4/5
- Water's Edge Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Middletown, CT · overall 3/5abuse
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 41 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 safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"
- "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Connecticut midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 40% 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 80 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ingraham Manor Rehab and Nursing | 0.4 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Civita Care Sheriden Woods | 1.1 mi | Bristol, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Village Green Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 2.0 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Farmington Valley | 4.6 mi | Plainville, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Cook Willow Health & Rehabilitation Center, INC. | 6.1 mi | Plymouth, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Summit at Plantsville Center for Health & Rehabili | 6.3 mi | Plantsville, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Southington Care Center | 6.4 mi | Southington, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Jerome Home | 7.1 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Bucks Hill | 7.2 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Monsignor Bojnowski Manor, INC | 7.4 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Livewell Connecticut | 7.5 mi | Plantsville, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Avon Health Center | 7.9 mi | Avon, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Naugatuck Vly, CT — 20 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Pomperaug Woods Health Center — Southbury, CT · overall 4/5
- Regency House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Wallingford, CT · overall 5/5
- River Glen Health Care Center — Southbury, CT · overall 5/5
- Shady Knoll Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Seymour, CT · overall 2/5
- Skyview Rehab and Nursing — Wallingford, CT · overall 3/5
- Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC — Waterbury, CT · overall 5/5
- Apple Rehab Watertown — Watertown, CT · overall 4/5
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 075221.