No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Notre Dame Health And Rehabilitation Center

76 West Rocks Road, Norwalk, CT 06851 · Non profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (203) 847-5893 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (203) 847-5893 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
2 actual-harm citations$8,278 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
Worth asking about
  • it has 2 actual-harm citations
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-09)
  • its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
205 Main St · (203) 840-0000 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
235 Main St · (203) 845-8767 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
380 Main Ave · (203) 840-1001 · Call to confirm hours
Park
17 Fair St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 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 improved from 4 to 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased9.9%18.0%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight8.4%6.5%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.3%0.7%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection4.2%1.5%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.1%22.3%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.6%3.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.2%16.4%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication9.2%17.6%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine87.3%93.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.4%4.0%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control13.0%24.7%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table5.6%17.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication4.1%1.5%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine29.6%69.7%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission12.6%24.3%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit13.5%10.7%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.572.061.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.331.461.80better

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.

59.3% 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 92 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

59.3%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
62.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.15U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.07hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 62.8% 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 43 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF59.3%CMS range 51.7–66.951.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.8%CMS range 6.2–14.410.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge62.8%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge60.5%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge58.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified94.4%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 dischargenot 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 stay1.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened1.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.6%CMS range 4.0–14.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.021.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.97
RN hours/ resident / day
0.88
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.30
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.16
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.76
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 56.3 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 4.16 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.97 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.30 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 3.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.38 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.06 to 0.76 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-08-27)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2022-05-19)

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.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2025-12-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 record review, facility documentation review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a diagnosis of dementia and a known fall risk was properly supervised and failed to ensure the resident was not left alone in the bathroom, to prevent a fall with injury. The findings include:Resident #1 had a diagnosis of dementia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 indicating severely impaired cognition, had no behaviors, and was dependent on staff assistance for toileting and transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/12/2025 identified a risk for falls and self-care deficit. Interventions directed to provide assistance of one (1) staff with transfers and toileting. Facility reportable event dated 12/1/2025 at 2 PM identified Resident #1 was noted lying on the bathroom floor, and complained of right hip pain. Resident #1 was unable…

    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
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2019-10-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #32 and 31) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure staff followed the plan of care and/or provided appropriate assistance during a transfer. The findings include: 1. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included macular degeneration, presbyopia, history of falls, insomnia and dementia. A reportable event form dated 1/19/19 at 4:20 AM identified Resident #32 was attempting to ambulate in his/her room and was found on the floor when the alarm sounded. The fall investigation identified that Resident #32 was wearing socks. A new intervention to avoid future falls included the resident to wear non-skid socks at bedtime. An undated nurse aide care card identified Resident #32 was a high fall risk and was to wear non-skid socks when in bed, staff to discourage removal, and reapply as needed. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified…

    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 · D2025-05-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for oxygen administration in a timely manner. The findings include: Resident #1 had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, atrial fibrillation, shortness of breath, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. The nursing admission evaluation dated 4/29/2025 at 8:42 P.M. by Registered Nurse (RN) #1 identified that Resident #1 was alert, answered questions readily, and had quick comprehension. RN #1 identified Resident #1 was continent of bowel and bladder, used the toilet, required one person assistance for transfer, ambulation, personal hygiene, and limited assistance with dressing. The care plan dated 4/30/2025 identified Resident #1 has impaired gas exchange due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and respiratory failure with interventions that directed to evaluate pulse oximetry, evaluate…

    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 · D2024-08-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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 2 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident who had a history of repeated falls on admission and was identified as a moderate fall risk. The findings include: Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included syncope and collapse, Alzheimer's disease, and repeated falls. The admission fall risk assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #42 had a history of 1 - 2 falls within the last 3 months, was taking diuretics, hypoglycemic agents, antihypertensives, and psychotropics more than 3 times weekly, had an inadequate vision pattern, and a gait analysis included: inability to independently come to a standing position, loss of balance while standing, requiring a hands-on assist to move from place to place, utilizing an assistive device, and had a decrease in muscle coordination. The fall risk…

    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 · D2024-08-27 · 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

    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 2 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure quarterly fall risk assessments were completed, per the facility policy. The findings include: Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included syncope and collapse, Alzheimer's disease, and repeated falls. The admission fall risk assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #42 had a history of 1 - 2 falls within the last 3 months, was taking diuretics, hypoglycemic agents, antihypertensives, and psychotropics more than 3 times weekly, had an inadequate vision pattern, and a gait analysis included: inability to independently come to a standing position, loss of balance while standing, requiring a hands-on assist to move from place to place, utilizing an assistive device, and had a decrease in muscle coordination. The fall risk assessment further identified that Resident #42 was at a moderate risk for…

    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 · D2024-08-27 · tag F0730 — isolated
    Observe each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations were completed for nurse aide staff for 2023. The findings included: During a review of performance evaluations for facility nurse aide staff on 8/26/24 for 2023 and 2024, the facility failed to provide any documentation of performance evaluations completed for NA #1 and NA #2 for 2023. Subsequent to this review, an additional request was made to the DNS provide additional annual performance evaluations for NA #1 and NA #2 for 2023. Interview with the DNS on 8/27/23 at 11:00 AM identified she was unable to locate any annual performance evaluations for nurse aide staff that had been completed in 2023. The DNS identified she was new to the facility and had completed annual evaluations for 2024 but was unable to locate any evaluations for nursing staff for 2023. The DNS further identified that she identified that the evaluations had not been completed and implemented an annual performance evaluation policy in 6/2024 to ensure that the annual…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    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 of 3 residents (Resident #39) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control techniques were implemented during a dressing change for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions. The findings include: Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, bladder cancer, and dementia. The care plan dated 5/20/24 identified Resident #39 required a suprapubic catheter due to neurogenic bladder from bladder cancer. Interventions included to monitor for signs/symptoms of urinary tract infections. Further review of the care plan failed identify interventions related to potential alteration in skin integrity or enhanced barrier precautions. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #39 had severely impaired cognition, was frequently incontinent of bowel and always incontinent of bladder and required maximal…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
    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 5 of 5 residents (Resident #3,14, 27, 30 and 209) reviewed for vaccinations, the facility failed to provide documentation that the resident or resident's representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal immunization, and that the resident either received the pneumococcal immunization according to the CDC guidelines or did not receive the pneumococcal immunization due to medical contraindication or refusal. The findings include: 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included mild cognitive impairment, anxiety disorder, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #3 had a resident representative who was identified as the responsible party, and Resident #3 was identified as being older than 65 years. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #3's pneumococcal vaccination was up to date. The immunization record…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0887 — isolated
    Educate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
    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 5 of 5 residents (Resident #3, 14, 27, 30 and 209) reviewed for COVID-19 immunizations, the facility failed to provide documentation that the resident, or resident representative was provided with current COVID-19 information regarding additional doses, including education and risks or potential side effects, or offered subsequent COVID-19 vaccinations. The findings include: 1. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included mild cognitive impairment, anxiety disorder, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #3 had a resident representative was identified as the responsible party. Resident #3's immunization record identified the resident received a COVID-19 vaccine Step 1 on 6/22/22. No subsequent COVID-19 vaccinations, offerings or education were identified. 2. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes, alcohol dependence…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-05-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to ensure food items were rotated out of emergency stock to ensure freshness according to policy. An observation of emergency food storage during kitchen tour on 5/16/22 at 7:15 AM identified the following food items dated with black marker: 1.(12) cans puree chicken dated 4/29/21 in black marker 2. (6) cans puree green beans dated 4/29/21 in black marker 3. (6) cans puree beef dated 6/15/21 in black marker 4. (4) 6.75 lb cans of chili dated 6/7/21 in black marker 5. (4) 6/63 lb. cans beef stew dated 6/7/21 in black marker 6. (2) 6.75 lb. can ravioli dated 6/7/21 in black marker 7. (2) 6 lb. cans fruit cocktail dated 6/7/21 in black marker 8. (3) 6 lb cans pudding dated 6/7/21 in black marker 9. (2) 6 lbs. cans of green beans dated 6/7/21 in black marker An interview on 5/16/22 at 8:09 AM with the Food Service Director (FSD) identified emergency food items were dated in magic marker when placed into emergency stock and should be rotated into regular stock with 6 months of date…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-05-19 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 resident (Resident #6) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure a nutritional assessment was completed timely for a resident with a newly identified pressure ulcer. The findings include: Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, osteoarthritis and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired, required assistance with bed mobility, transfers and personal care, was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers and did not have any unhealed pressure ulcers. A Resident Care Plan dated 2/23/22 identified a potential for skin breakdown, moisture associated skin damage, pressure ulcer development related to decreased mobility, incontinence of bowel and bladder. Interventions included house lotion to lower extremities as ordered,…

    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 · Dcited before2022-05-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #3) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Care Plan was reviewed/revised after Resident #3 fell, failed to accurately and completely complete every 15 minute checks, and failed to ensure timely Physical Therapy screens were completed on 2 occasions. The findings include: Resident #3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included dementia, dysphasia, and anxiety. A Resident Care Plan dated 2/14/21 identified Resident #3 was at risk for falls related to a history of falls at home, falls in the facility, impaired cognition, lack of safety awareness and attempts to self-transfer. Interventions included to ensure the call light was within reach and encourage resident to use it, ensure that he/she is wearing appropriate footwear when ambulating or mobilizing in the wheelchair, follow fall protocol and to utilize a bed and chair alarm. On 5/20/21 every…

    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 · D2022-05-19 · tag F0886 — failed to test for COVID-19 as required — isolated
    Perform COVID19 testing on residents and staff.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure outbreak testing for staff were followed in accordance with infection control practices and facility protocols. The findings include: Electronic (text) communication to the Food Service Director (FSD) and other staff dated 5/15/22 noted a staff member had tested positive for COVID-19, with a directive for all staff to come in to the facility for testing. An observation on 5/16/22 between 6:10 AM and 6:40 AM identified the FSD exiting out of the kitchen area, ambulating in the hallway and then entering staff development room to assist setting up a table. The FSD time sheet dated 5/16/22 identified he punched in at 5:15 AM and punched out at 7:30 AM. An interview on 5/16/22 at 7:47 AM with RN #1 identified she began her shift at 7:00 AM and began completing outbreak testing, (antigen testing for COVID-19) for staff as soon as they enter the building. RN #1 indicated staff were to be tested upon entering the building and before going to their…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-10-03 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 interview for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #33) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to follow the plan of care related to an out of bed schedule. The findings include: Resident #33's diagnoses included Alzheimer's dementia and stage 3 pressure ulcer. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #33 had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers. The care plan dated 6/27/19 identified Resident #33 had a potential for pressure ulcer development with interventions that included to provide a low air loss mattress, check every shift for functioning, turn and reposition every 2 hours and more often as needed and/or requested. Review of an undated nurse aide care card identified to limit Resident #33's sitting time to 1 hour. A weekly skin sheet dated 8/22/19 identified Resident #33 had a stage 3 sacral pressure ulcer that measured 1 cm x 1 cm x <0.1 cm.…

    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 · D2019-10-03 · tag F0810 — isolated
    Provide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
    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, revies of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #17 and 33) reviewed for dining, the facility failed to provide adaptive equipment during dining. The findings include: 1. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included right hand and shoulder contractures, anxiety and dementia. A communication to nursing from therapy form dated 12/17/18 directed Resident #17 to use a divided 3 compartment plate to assist with scooping food during meals. A physician's order dated 12/20/18 directed to provide Resident #17 a divided plate to assist with scooping food, to remain independent with self-feeding. The annual MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #17 had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance with eating. The care plan dated 8/19/19 identified Resident #17 had a self-care deficit. Interventions included to take Resident #17 to the dining room for lunch and supper, allow the…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary 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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-12-09

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
GOLDER, FRANCOISEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/01/2013
DEVINE, JOHNIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/01/2010
MONAST, MARIE LUCIANIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/01/2001
PAUL, DANAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/02/2013
SIMON, MARKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/01/2010

CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.

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.

$6.7M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-13.0%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$132K
Related-party expense2% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 73%Medicare 10%Other / private 17%

About 73% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $132K 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

$373per resident / day
operating cost
$11,336per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$330per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Connecticut
$15,208/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$16,729/mo
Nursing home (private)
$9,118/mo
Assisted living

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 075356. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-27, 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.

What to do next