Chestelm Health And Rehabilitation Center
534 Town St, Moodus, CT 06469 · For profit - Corporation · 76 certified beds · (860) 873-1455 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 19.2% | 18.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.9% | 6.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.7% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.5% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.0% | 22.3% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.7% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.5% | 16.4% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.5% | 17.6% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 93.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 4.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.2% | 24.7% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.3% | 17.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 69.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 9.9% | 24.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.0% | 10.7% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.43 | 2.06 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.49 | 1.46 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
63.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 75 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 65 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 63.7%CMS range 52.5–71.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 6.7–13.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 52.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 44.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 52.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.2%CMS range 3.5–10.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 76 beds and averages 70.5 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.24 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.89 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.40 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.97 to 0.70 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-13 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who had a new medication ordered for a change in condition and there was a noted medication interaction identified by the pharmacy, the facility failed inquiry the pharmacy why the medication had not been available and to notify the provider for six (6) days. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included constipation, failure to thrive, and aphasia following cerebral infarction (a stroke resulting in damage to areas of the brain responsible for language). The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen (14) out of fifteen (15) indicating slight memory recall deficits, was dependent on staff for toileting and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 6/18/25 identified Resident #1 was at risk for constipation related to a history…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for constipation, the facility failed to ensure an abdominal assessment was conducted and continued monitoring following an incident of rectal bleeding. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included constipation, failure to thrive, aphasia following cerebral infarction (a stroke resulting in damage to areas of the brain responsible for language) and atrial fibrillation (an irregular heart rate). The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of fourteen (14) indicating no memory recall deficits, was dependent on staff for toileting and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The Resident Care Plan dated 6/18/25 identified Resident #1 was at risk for constipation related to a history of constipation, impaired mobility, opiate use (narcotic pain medication) and a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for 15 of 70 residents (Resident #4, Resident #6, Resident #22, Resident #28, Resident #30, Resident #32, Resident #33, Resident #39, Resident #41, Resident #45, Resident #48, Resident #58, Resident #65, Resident #69, Resident #326) reviewed for preventative weekly body audits, the facility failed to perform preventative weekly body audits according facility policy and physician orders. The findings include: 1. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility in November of 2020 and had diagnoses that included cerebrovascular disease, abnormal posture, and osteoarthritis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 was severely cognitively impaired (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3), was at risk for developing pressure injuries and had moisture associated skin damage (MASD) with skin treatments. Resident #4 was dependent for bed mobility and transfers. The Resident Care Plan…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-26 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #45) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL), the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in condition. The findings include: Resident #45 was admitted in February of 2021 and had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), anxiety, and pneumoconiosis (chronic lung disease) due to asbestos and other mineral fibers. A physician's order dated 9/18/24 directed Resident #45 receive a regular diet at dysphagia level 2 (mechanically altered) texture, thin liquids, pureed vegetables, no rice, a 2 handled mug with concave lid and meal items served in individual bowls. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #45 was severely cognitively impaired and required setup or clean-up assistance with eating, was dependent for personal hygiene, and required substantial/maximal assistance with transfers. The Resident Care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-26 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, facility documentation and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide medication administration education to a temporary agency staff nurse before starting work to meet professional standards of practice to prevent a significant medication error. The findings include: A Reportable Event Form dated 10/11/24 identified that Resident #1 received Resident #14's medications in error which included the following medications: Amlodipine 5 milligrams (mg) (lowers blood pressure), Aspirin 81mg (NSAID), Depakote 250mg (anticonvulsant), Cymbalta 120 mg (antidepressant), Gabapentin 800mg (anticonvulsant), lacosamide 100mg (antoconvulsant), Keppra 500 mg (anticonvulsant), Metoprolol 25mg (lowers blood pressure), Movantik 25mg (treats opioid induced constipation), Docusate (stool softener), Simethicone (gas relief), Vitamin D (supplement) and Vitamin B12 (supplement). Interview with LPN #1 on 11/25/24 at 1:47 PM identified that she was assigned to administer morning medications to Resident #1 on 10/11/24. LPN #1 identified that she went into the wrong room…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #58) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that side rails were used for positioning and bed mobility resulting in a fall. The findings include: Resident #58's diagnoses included hemiplegia (paralysis) affecting the left side, dementia, anxiety and generalized muscle weakness. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #58 was severely cognitively impaired (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3) and was dependent for toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, bed mobility and transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/11/24 identified Resident #58 required assistance with ADL's due to left hemiplegia, mobility deficit and self-care deficit. Interventions included using 2 quarter siderails to assist with positioning and bed mobility, assistance with personal hygiene and maintaining proper body alignment and positioning. A facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-26 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 1. Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #22 and Resident #34) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to obtain a reweight as directed by provider order and failed to notify a provider of a weight change and failed to obtain daily weights as directed by a provder order. The findings include: Resident #22 was admitted to the facility in October of 2024 and had diagnoses that included periprosthetic fracture around other internal prosthetic joint, constipation, heart failure and acute prosthetic anemia. A Nutrition evaluation dated 10/16/24 at 11:57 AM identified a regular puree consistency diet with thin liquids and identified no swallowing difficulties. The evaluation identified Resident #22 had dentures but did not wear them, had 2 remaining teeth on the bottom, and had a left hip surgical site. A provider order dated 10/16/24 directed to obtain weekly weights for 4 weeks then obtain monthly weights.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #44 and 422) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters, the facility failed to ensure the residents dignity when the urinary drainage bags were left uncovered and visible. The findings include: 1. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included benign prostate hyperplasia and obstructive and reflux uropathy. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #44 had intact cognition, required extensive assistance with transfers, bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene and had an indwelling catheter. The care plan dated 12/22/22 identified Resident #44 had an indwelling urinary catheter with interventions that included to use a drainage bag cover at all times. Observation on 2/7/23 at 10:45 AM identified Resident #44 was sitting in a wheelchair on the left side of the bed next to the door. The indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-02-15 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interview for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #36) reviewed for positioning, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was in place and nurse monitoring was regularly performed and documented, for a resident utilizing a positioning device, and for 1 resident (Resident #52) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a RN assessment was completed when the resident had a change in condition. The findings include: 1. Resident #36's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. Review of the physician's order history identified a lap buddy (a positioning device) for positioning was ordered on 10/16/21 with instructions to document the resident's ability to remove the device every shift. Further review identified the lap buddy was discontinued 5 months later, on 3/24/22. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified the resident had severely impaired cognition with behaviors of continuous disorganized…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-15 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #44) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was dated per facility policy. The findings include: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and chronic congestive heart failure. A physician's order dated 10/27/22 directed to apply oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula and to change the oxygen tubing weekly on Tuesday during the night shift. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #44 had intact cognition, had shortness of breath with exertion, while sitting at rest, and while lying flat and did not require oxygen prior to being at the facility. The care plan dated 12/22/22 identified the resident had alteration in respiratory status with interventions that included to provide oxygen as ordered and as needed per nursing measure and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2020-01-30 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — patternProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for hemodialysis, the facility failed to monitor a hemodialysis Arterio-Venous (AV) fistula. The findings include: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end-stage renal disease, hypertension, and atherosclerotic heart disease. A Resident Care Plan dated 5/18/18 through 1/29/20 identified a problem with needing hemodialysis related to end stage renal disease. Interventions included to notify physician for change in fistula, dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and do not draw blood or take blood pressures in the arm with the graft. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] and the 5 day (re-admission) MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #7 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of one for bed mobility, transfers, walking in the room, dressing, toilet…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2024-11-26 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — widespreadHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to inform residents of how to complete a grievance, failed to ensure forms were available and accessible to residents and visitors and failed to maintain the results of grievances for three years. The findings include: Observations on 11/20/24 at 11:50 AM identified the grievance folder and a suggestion box were hung on a wall at the end of a hallway on the subacute unit, not easily accessible to any residents, especially to those residents who utilize wheelchairs, secondary to the level hung on the wall. The grievance folder was empty with no available forms inside. Review of the facility's grievance binder on 11/21/24 at 10:00 AM noted to have no completed grievance forms for the year 2023 and 2024. Interview with the Administrator on 11/21/24 at 10:30 AM indicated the facility did not have any grievances, instead, the facility received complaints which were then resolved, therefore, the facility had no grievances for the years on 2023 and 2024. She further indicated that her definition of a grievance was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-11-26 · tag F0637 — patternAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interview for 3 of 3 sampled residents, (Resident #45, Resident #58, and Resident #61), reviewed for change of condition, the facility failed to submit significant change in status (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for a decline in more than two functional ability areas. The findings include: 1. Resident #45 was admitted to the facility in February of 2021 and had diagnoses that included dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and osteoarthritis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #45 was severely cognitively impaired, used a manual wheelchair (w/c), was independent with wheeling 50 feet (ft) with 2 turns in the w/c, and was independent with wheeling 150 ft in the w/c. Resident #45 required supervision or touching assistance with eating, bed mobility, walking 10 ft, and walking 50 ft with 2 turns. Resident #45 required partial/moderate assistance with oral hygiene, upper body…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHESTELM SKILLED OPERATIONS HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 02/27/2025 |
| MFK HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 02/27/2025 |
| PROMOS FIRST LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 02/27/2025 |
| HOROWITZ, PINCHOS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2025 |
| KALMANOWITZ, MARK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2025 |
| CAVICKE, DANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2025 |
| MARINAR, BRENDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/27/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $600K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in CT
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Connecticut Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 075307. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-26, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.