Vantage Health & Rehab of New Bedford
200 Hawthorn Street, New Bedford, MA 02740 · Bristol County · 80 certified beds · avg 68 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1990
Part of chain: VANTAGE CARE (10 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$9,318
Fines, last 3 years
2.25
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: 1/5
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 · Apr 24, 2024 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: May 2, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (31)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | 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. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | 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. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | 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. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | 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. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. |
| Feb 20, 2026 | 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. |
| Feb 27, 2025 | 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. |
| Feb 27, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 27, 2025 | 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. |
| Feb 27, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 27, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Feb 27, 2025 | D · Potential for 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. |
| Feb 27, 2025 | 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. |
| Feb 27, 2025 | 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. |
| Feb 27, 2025 | 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. |
| Feb 11, 2025 | D · Potential for 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 11, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Dec 2, 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. · from a complaint |
| Sep 24, 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. · from a complaint |
| Apr 24, 2024 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint |
| Dec 19, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Dec 19, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Dec 19, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 19, 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. |
| Dec 19, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 19, 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 11).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 11 | 0 | E |
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 $9,318.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2024 | Fine | $9,318 |
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) | 2.25 | 3.89 | 3.95 | bottom 1% in Massachusetts; bottom 2% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.36 | 0.65 | 0.69 | bottom 9% in Massachusetts; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 1.74 | 3.51 | 3.50 | bottom 1% in Massachusetts; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.30 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 28% in Massachusetts; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 69.8 | 38.2 | 45.8 | bottom 2% in Massachusetts; bottom 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 72.7 | 42.6 | 42.9 | bottom 7% in Massachusetts; bottom 9% 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 2.45, RN 0.39, weekend 1.90. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown, Yossi | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 07/03/2024 |
| Yurowitz, Sam | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 07/03/2024 |
| Spector, Sam | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/03/2024 |
| Torres, Efrain | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/03/2024 |
| Yurowitz, Sam | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/03/2024 |
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?"
- "Walk me through what happens when a resident or family files a grievance — who responds and how fast?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Who oversees antibiotic use here, and how do you decide when an antibiotic is really needed?"
- "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandon Woods of New Bedford | 0.6 mi | New Bedford, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Brandon Woods of Dartmouth | 1.2 mi | South Dartmouth, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sacred Heart Nursing Home | 1.4 mi | New Bedford, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Hathaway Manor Extended Care | 2.0 mi | New Bedford, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Royal of Fairhaven Nursing Center | 2.0 mi | Fairhaven, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Our Ladys Haven of Fairhaven INC | 2.1 mi | Fairhaven, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Alden Court Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Center | 3.1 mi | Fairhaven, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Care One at New Bedford | 5.0 mi | New Bedford, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Oaks, the | 7.7 mi | New Bedford, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Sippican Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 10.5 mi | Marion, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Grove at Carvalho | 11.2 mi | Fall River, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Kimwell Nursing and Rehabilitation | 11.6 mi | Fall River, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
All facilities in New Bedford →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225481.