Massachusetts ›Fall River

Sarah S Brayton Center

4901 North Main Street, Fall River, MA 02720 · Bristol County · 183 certified beds · avg 166 residents/day · certified since Aug 11, 1993

Part of chain: BEST CARE SERVICES (10 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$151,920
Fines, last 3 years
3.70
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 · Sep 18, 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 20, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (50)

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
Feb 20, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Feb 20, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Feb 20, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Feb 20, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule.
Feb 20, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Feb 20, 2026D · 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.
Feb 20, 2026D · 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.
Feb 20, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Feb 20, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Dec 19, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 19, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Dec 19, 2024E · 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.
Dec 19, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 19, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Dec 19, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 19, 2024D · 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.
Dec 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Dec 19, 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.
Dec 19, 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.
Dec 19, 2024D · 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.
Dec 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them.
Dec 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Dec 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Dec 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Dec 19, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman.
Dec 19, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Dec 5, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Dec 5, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 5, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Sep 18, 2023▲ 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.
Sep 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Sep 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Sep 18, 2023E · 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.
Sep 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Sep 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 18, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Sep 18, 2023D · 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.
Sep 18, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Sep 18, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 18, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 18, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Sep 18, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 18, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 18, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Sep 18, 2023B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal.
Sep 18, 2023B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Sep 18, 2023B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (20 → 9).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023211G ▲
2024200E
202690E

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 $151,920.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 18, 2023Fine$151,920

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

MeasureThis facilityMassachusetts avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.703.893.95bottom 46% in Massachusetts; bottom 47% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.700.650.69top 30% in Massachusetts; top 36% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.323.513.50bottom 45% in Massachusetts; bottom 49% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.550.460.48top 23% in Massachusetts; top 28% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)38.738.245.8bottom 46% in Massachusetts; top 33% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)32.042.642.9top 30% in Massachusetts; top 33% 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 3.43, RN 0.65, weekend 3.08. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Al-Madi, SamiIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022
Bonadio & Co LLPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2023
Chapler, YaakovIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022
Reliant Pro Rehab, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022
Sarza, SandraIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022
Sarza, SandraIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022
Steinberg, MosheIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022
Torres, EfrainIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022
Twomagnets LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022

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
Catholic Memorial Home1.8 miFall River, MA★★☆☆☆2/5
Fall River Healthcare2.5 miFall River, MA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Somerset Ridge Center3.2 miSomerset, MA★★★★☆4/5
Kimwell Nursing and Rehabilitation3.6 miFall River, MA★☆☆☆☆2/5
Clifton Rehabilitation Nursing Center3.9 miSomerset, MA★★★★☆4/5
Fall River Jewish Home3.9 miFall River, MA★☆☆☆☆2/5
The Grove at Carvalho4.1 miFall River, MA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Mill Brook Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center6.6 miFall River, MA★★★★☆3/5
Country Gardens Health and Rehabilitation7.3 miSwansea, MA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Crestwood Nursing & Rehabilitation Center INC7.5 miWarren, RI★★★★★5/5
Grace Barker Nursing Center8.0 miWarren, RI★★★★☆4/5
Warren Operations Ri, LLC DBA Warren Center8.6 miWarren, RI★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Fall River →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225589.