Beechwood Health & Rehabilitation Center

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

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.

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.

59.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 121 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 59.6% 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 47 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: this home’s payroll records show 0.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 74% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 56.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 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 4.00 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.95 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.22 is below 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 3.65 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.14 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.90 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

23 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 13 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor 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 clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident # 1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure staff treated the resident with dignity and respect when the resident did not respond to redirection. The findings include:Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included dementia, restlessness and agitation, generalized muscle weakness, frequent falls and anxiety. A 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident # 1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0, (severely impaired cognition), had wandering behavior one (1) to three (3) days in the prior seven (7) days, and required assistance for personal hygiene. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 5/22/2025 identified Resident #1 had impaired cognition and wandering behaviors. Interventions that directed to face Resident #1 when speaking, and if restless or agitated, reapproach later, and redirect as needed. 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to prevent further potential abuse while the investigation was in progress and failed to suspend the alleged staff member during the investigation in accordance with facility policy. The findings include: Resident #2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included mild neurocognitive disorder with behavioral disturbance, and anxiety disorder. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/12/2025 identified Resident #2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 (indicated was alert and oriented) and required staff assistance for personal care. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 7/28/2025 identified Resident #2 had impaired coping and pain. The RCP directed to evaluate the cause of anxiety or fear, provide care in a calm and reassuring manner, and provide medications as ordered. A facility reportable event (RE) form dated 8/31/2025 at…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide 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

  Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse or neglect, the facility failed to provide physician order medications as scheduled. The findings include:Resident #2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, mild neurocognitive disorder with behavioral disturbance, and anxiety disorder. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/12/2025 identified Resident # 2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 and was alert and oriented, and required assistance with personal care. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 7/28/2025 identified impaired coping and pain. Interventions directed to administer medications as ordered. Physician orders dated 8/12/2025, directed to administer the following medications: Bumetanide 1 milligram (mg), 2 tablets once a day for pedal edema (swelling of the feet/lower legs). Celexa 20 mg once a day for depression Oxybutynin Chloride Extended…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-06-26 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — pattern
  Honor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and an interviews for 30 of 52 sampled residents (Resident #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #13, #14, #15, #18, #23, #24, #26, #28, #29, #30, #33, #35, #39, #42, #44, #58, #500, #501, #502, #503, #504, #505, #506, and #507) reviewed for personal funds, the facility failed to credit interest earned to each resident's personal funds account. The findings include: Interview and facility documentation review with Director of Revenue #1 on 6/25/2025 at 2:10 PM, identified that Resident #33 had personal funds held by the facility in an interest-bearing account. Director of Revenue #1 indicated the monthly application of interest earned to an individual resident's account was a manual process. She identified that the facility failed to apply any interest earned to Resident #33's personal funds account from April 2024 to May 2025. Further review of Resident Trust Accounts identified a total of 30 residents with funds held by the facility who did not have interest earned applied to their individual accounts. Current…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-06-26 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — pattern
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  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 record review, staff interviews, and facility policy for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #4, Resident #22, and Resident #33) reviewed for advanced directives, the facility failed to obtain a signed copy of an Advanced Directive form for Resident #4 and Resident #33, and for Resident #22 failed to transcribe the signed Advance Directive form to the electronic medical record. The findings include: 1. Resident #4 was admitted in February of 2020 with diagnoses that included encounter for palliative care, malignant neoplasm of the left breast (breast cancer), chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, unspecified atrial flutter, cardiomyopathy, and essential hypertension. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] identified Resident#4 had a BIMS score of 99, indicating the resident was unable to complete the Brief Interview…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  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 a review of the clinical record, interviews, facility documentation, and facility policy, for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #28) reviewed for abuse and for the only sampled resident (Resident #30) reviewed for grievances the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency per the requirement. The findings include: 1. Resident #28's diagnoses included bipolar disorder, morbid obesity, and chronic congestive heart failure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #28 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 indicating cognition was moderately impaired, required a wheelchair for mobility, and was dependent on staff for bed mobility, and all transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 5/12/2025 identified Resident #28 was dependent on staff for meeting emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs related to immobility and physical limitations. Interventions directed staff to converse with Resident #28 when providing…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-26 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  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 a review of the clinical record, interviews, facility documentation, and facility policy, for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #28) reviewed for abuse and for the only sampled residents (Resident #30) reviewed for grievances the facility failed to investigate an allegation of abuse per the facility policy. The findings include: 1. Resident #28's diagnoses included bipolar disorder, morbid obesity, and chronic congestive heart failure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #28 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 indicating cognition was moderately impaired, required a wheelchair for mobility, and was dependent on staff for personal hygiene, bed mobility, and all transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 5/12/2025 identified Resident #28 was dependent on staff for meeting emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs related to immobility and physical limitations. Interventions directed staff to converse with Resident #28 when…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  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 clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident, (Resident #33) reviewed for care planning, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Care Plan was reviewed and revised on a quarterly basis with participation from an interdisciplinary team and Resident #33's representative. The findings included: Resident #33's diagnoses included dementia, anxiety, and dysphagia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #33 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 indicating Resident #33 was severely cognitively impaired, and required set-up and clean-up assistance when eating, and extensive assistance with bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. Review of the Resident Care Conference (RCC) quarterly meeting documentation on 4/24/2024 at 2:44 PM identified Person #1 was responsible for Resident #33. A note indicated an interdisciplinary RCC meeting took place with Person #1, social services and the MDS coordinator. Resident…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-26 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  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 clinical record, facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure fingernail care was provided to Resident #4. The findings include: Resident #4 was admitted in February 2020 with diagnoses including encounter for palliative care, malignant neoplasm of the left breast (breast cancer), chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, and unspecified atrial flutter. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, indicating inability to complete the Brief Interview of Mental Status, and was dependent for personal hygiene. The Resident Care Plan dated 6/15/2025 identified Resident #4 had an ADL self-care performance deficit. Interventions indicated: requires extensive assist by (1) staff with personal hygiene, and with a terminal prognosis with comfort focused care, and with adjustments to the provision of ADLs to compensate for changing abilities. Observations on 6/23/2025 at 11:26 AM…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-06-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  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 observations, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for 3 residents identified during the initial screening of residents (Resident # 51, Resident #48 and Resident #21) the facility failed to ensure medications were not at bedside and alcoholic beverages were not stored in the medication refrigerator in 1 of 2 medication refrigerators. The findings include: 1.a. Resident #21's diagnoses included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and sleep apnea. The Resident Care Plan dated 2/7/2025 identified COPD as an area of concern. Interventions included providing aerosol or bronchodilators as ordered, monitor for side effects of medication, monitor for acute respiratory insufficiency, and administered oxygen therapy as ordered. Resident #21's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #21 as being moderately cognitively impaired as the result of a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 9. Physician's orders dated 6/23/2025 directed to…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

2 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 $520K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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