Home / Connecticut / New Haven
169 Davenport Avenue, New Haven, CT 06519 · South Central Ct County · (203) 789-1650
226 certified beds, about 198 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075348 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 29, 2025, inspectors cited 18 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 70 health citations since September 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $220,426 in the last three years; the largest was $147,976, and the latest is dated March 19, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.78 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
34.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Essential Healthcare, an affiliated group of 6 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 70 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed follow the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidance for scheduled testing of the water, obtain the appropriate amount of water samples to be tested, and replace the sink filters every ninety (90) days according to the manufacturer's guidance after a resident had tested positive for legionella at the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation/policy, and interviews for two (2) of three (3) residents (Resident #2 and Resident #14) reviewed for neglect, the facility failed to ensure nail care was performed for a dependent resident (Resident #2) with a contracted hand, failed to implement effective interventions when the resident resisted care, and failed to report ongoing care concerns to the provider for further evaluation, resulting in overgrown, unkempt fingernails and a left fourth finger infection requiring surgical intervention (incision and drainage); and failed to ensure bathing care was provided for a cognitively impaired resident (Resident #14) and failed to identify, report, and address ongoing gaps in care delivery, resulting in poor hygiene requiring hand soaks to remove fecal matter from underneath the fingernails.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation/policy, and interviews for three (3) of three (3) residents (Residents #2, #14, and #18) reviewed for significant weight loss, the facility failed to ensure adequate nutritional monitoring and intervention to prevent significant weight loss by failing to obtain weights per policy and physician orders, failing to obtain timely re-weights following significant changes, and failing to consistently document and evaluate meal intake to guide care resulting in an inability to identify and respond to nutritional decline and contributed to continued weight loss, and for Resident #14, malnutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation/policy, and interviews for two (2) of three (3) residents (Resident #2 and Resident #14) reviewed for activities of daily living, the facility failed to provide necessary assistance with personal hygiene, including hand and nail care for a dependent resident with a contracted hand (Resident #2), and bathing care for a cognitively impaired resident (Resident #14), and failed to implement effective interventions when care was resisted, resulting in poor hygiene, including overgrown, unkempt fingernails with compromised skin integrity and the need for hand soaks to remove fecal matter from underneath the fingernails.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interviews, and review of facility documentation and policy for seven (7) of nine (9) residents (Resident #1, #3, #4, #7, #8, #9, and #13) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to provide timely notification to the ombudsman when residents were discharged and/or planned for discharge from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #14) reviewed for significant weight loss, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive assessment accurately reflected the resident's significant weight loss greater than ten (10) percent (%) in the last six (6) months at the time of the assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #2) who were reviewed for a change in condition, the facility failed to notify the provider at the time Resident #2 reported shortness of breath until three (3) hours later.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #2) reviewed for supplemental oxygen, the facility failed to assess the resident and notify the provider when Resident #2 experienced Shortness of Breath (SOB) related to the facility's lack of oxygen concentrators and emergency tank supplies. The facility failed to ensure continuous, functioning supplemental oxygen and failed to provide timely, appropriate intervention for Resident #2's acute respiratory distress, resulting in Resident #2's condition deteriorating to acute respiratory arrest, ultimately leading to death.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility policies and interviews for three (3) of seven (7) sampled residents (Residents #3, #4 and #5) who required supplemental oxygen use via a concentrator, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen tubing was changed every seven (7) days per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, review of facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #3) reviewed for supplemental oxygen usage, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address Resident #3's need for oxygen use.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #2) reviewed for supplemental oxygen, the facility failed to assess the resident when staff reported Resident #2 was experiencing shortness of breath.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication cart located in the hallway was locked and medication was secured to prevent unauthorized access.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of twenty-one (21) randomly selected residents (Residents #5 and #11), the facility failed to ensure blood work was obtained per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for two (2) of seven (7) sampled residents (Residents #6 and #7) who required supplemental oxygen usage via a concentrator, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen concentrators were inspected annually for function and safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for one of three residents (Residents #1) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the physician/APRN was notified timely when medications were not administered in accordance with orders, and for two (2) of three (3) residents (Resident #14 and Resident #16) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to notify the physician/APRN timely when medications were not available for administration in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for three sampled residents (Residents #1, #12, and #13) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from misappropriate of resident property.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for three sampled residents (Residents #1, 12, and 13) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards to include controls of narcotic medications as per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for three of six residents (Residents #1, Resident #14 and Resident #16) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure medications were available and administered in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse or neglect, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from physical abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1), reviewed for abuse or neglect, the facility failed to obtain vital signs according to provider order for a resident who required monitoring after a newly discontinued medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #3) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that the medical provider was notified timely of a change in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was revised timely after a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure neurological assessments were completed timely after an unwitnessed fall in accordance with facility Monitoring guidelines.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews with one of three residents (Resident #3) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the medical record was complete and accurate to include timely documentation of a medical evaluation.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to notify the physician regarding the resident not receiving his/her medication for two (2) days.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure a medication provided by the family for facility staff to administer was verified/confirmed to be the drug ordered by the physician and failed to ensure the contents of each container have been verified by a licensed pharmacist in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure the treatment plans recommended by the wound care physician were entered into the clinical record and implemented.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for resident rights, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was treated with dignity and respect.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical reviews, observations, review of policy and interviews for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for smoking (Resident #21), the facility failed to provide a safe smoking environment and for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #187) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure staff reported resident behavior that presented as a fire hazard.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, reviews of facility policy and staff interviews for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #166), reviewed for physician visits, the facility failed to ensure that physician visits were completed timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 28 of 28 sampled residents (Resident #105, #89, #151, #183, #19, #474, #113, #475, #190,# 476, #96, #163, #148, #133, #21, #100,# 200, #199, #177, #479, #185, #182, #188, #143, #198, #147, #193,# 211) reviewed for medication storage, the facility failed to develop and implement policies for the recordkeeping of individual use and chain of custody controlled substances, failed to maintain an unbroken chain of custody for controlled medications once received and distributed to nursing unit(s) and failed to document inventory across shifts and failed to maintain an accurate disposition log for the destruction and return of unused controlled medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on tour of the dietary department and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served at an appropriate temperature to maintain palpable taste.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility Infection Control Program, facility documentation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff conducted and maintained documentation of yearly ongoing review of antibiotic use within the facility based on Antibiotic stewardship guidelines.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for 1 of 5 for (Resident # 70), reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure staff interacted with the resident respectfully.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1of 3 residents (Resident # 173) reviewed for personal property, the facility failed to ensure the resident's personal medication was not missing and for 2 of 2 residents ( Residents # 164 and # 181) reviewed for environment, the facility failed to ensure a shared room had a functioning bathroom sink and for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #118) reviewed for environment, the facility failed to ensure resident furniture was maintained and in proper working order.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #144) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed implement policies to ensure the protection residents following an allegation of abuse and for (Resident # 214), the facility failed to timely followed up on Resident # 214 concerns regarding Resident # 1's physical and verbal abuse toward staff to rule out Resident # 1 was not a danger to self and others.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #111) reviewed for specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure staff developed a care plan reflecting the needs of a resident receiving dialysis care and for1 of 2 residents (Resident # 109), reviewed for communication- Sensory, the facility failed to ensure that the care plan reflected the residents' sensory needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, policy the facility and interviews for 2 of 4 residents ( Resident # 104) reviewed for urinary retention, the facility failed to revised the care plan after the resident returned from an inpatient stay and for 1 of 1 resident ( Resident # 207)reviewed for care planning, the facility failed to ensure staff revised the residents a resident's care plan to reflect resident's choice regarding bathroom preferences .
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical review, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for of 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #144) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to offer Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care to a resident who required toileting assist.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documents, policy review and interviews for 1 of 2 residents ( Resident # 144) reviewed for pain, the facility failed to ensure a a resident with reports of increasing pain was reported/assessed by an Registered Nurse and for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #324), reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure a follow-up appointment with a specialist provider was provided as scheduled .
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and documentation for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 104) reviewed for urinary retention, the facility failed to follow the resident's discharge summary physician's order for urinary retention and for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Bowel and Bladder Incontinence (Resident #207), the facility failed to assess a resident with frequent incontinence for participation in a bowel and bladder re-training program.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy review and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #105) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure staff obtained a readmission weight timely and obtained re-weights for a resident at nutritional risk.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 or 2 residents (Resident #78) reviewed for specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was in working condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility policy and interviews for 5 of 6 residents ( Residents #14, #39, #84, #111 and #424) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed to ensure staff consistently monitored vital signs, the resident's hemodialysis access sites and follow facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff followed correct infection control practices for a resident ( Resident #86) requiring droplet and contact precautions and failed to ensure staff followed appropriate infection control practices when a resident bathroom sink ( Resident #164 and #181) was out of service.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident Assessment during survey, review of facility documentation and interviews for 17 of 17 residents (Residents 84,90,195,197,11,40,62,173,79,24,68,100,120,192,80,194,64), the facility failed to ensure the residents Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment were transmitted timely to the state agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to notify the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) timely of missed anti-seizure medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication errors the facility failed to ensure that a resident received an anti-seizure medication as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wrote(1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #2) who were reviewed for comprehensive care planning, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address the resident's wound that was present on admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for environmental review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public and failed to ensure five of eleven resident's (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5) rooms were free of bugs/roaches.
Inspectors wroteBased 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 honor the resident's right by not providing assistance when requested.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #2), reviewed for abuse, the facility failed ensure the State Agency was notified of an allegation of abuse in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review and interviews for one observed resident (Resident #618), the facility failed to ensure the call bell was within reach.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy review and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #119) reviewed for a pressure ulcer (R#119), the facility failed to ensure the responsible party notified timely when a wound was identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy, facility documentation review, and interviews for on one of seven nursing unit shower rooms (S-3 Unit), reviewed for environment, the facility failed to ensure that the shower room was maintained in a clean, comfortable home-like manner and/or free from disrepair.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews for one of four residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #119) and for one of two residents reviewed for indwelling catheters (Resident #119), the facility failed to ensure intake and output were monitored for a resident with a feeding tube and a Foley catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, facility policy review and interviews for one of three residents reviewed for a pressure ulcer (Resident #119), the facility failed to ensure a wound treatment was provided in a clean manner with supplies placed on a clean surface.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review and interviews for two of four residents (Resident #23 and #119), the facility failed to ensure a significant weight loss was addressed timely and the facility failed to ensure a reweight was obtained timely for a resident identified with a weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, policy review, and interviews for one of two residents (Resident #616) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy and procedures and interviews for one of three residents reviewed for a pressure ulcer (R#119), the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was maintained in a complete and accurate manner to include accurate dates weekly skin checks were completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, facility policy review and interviews for one of two residents (Resident #188) reviewed for tracheostomy care, the facility failed to ensure supplies were stored appropriately and not stored on the floor, and for facility Infection Control Review, the facility failed to ensure facility infections were tracked and expired IV supplies were removed from staff access timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, clinical record review, and staff interview, for one of two residents in the survey sample reviewed for abuse (Resident #19), the facility failed to ensure a staff member reported an allegation of mistreatment in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #330) reviewed for anticoagulant medication, the facility failed to implement a care plan to reflect the use of an anticoagulant medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews, for 1 of 5 residents, (Resident #126) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to follow physician's order for orthostatic blood pressure monitoring and/or for one sampled resident (Resident #330) reviewed for anticoagulant medication, the facility failed to implement a care plan to reflect the use of an anticoagulant medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews, for one sampled resident (Resident #202) reviewed for enteral feeding, the facility failed to remove a gastrostomy tube (GT) feeding set up after 24 hours of use and/or failed to maintain complete daily intake measurements.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, for one resident in the survey sample reviewed for laboratory services (Resident #97), the facility failed to ensure a laboratory test was completed to monitor a medication per physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a beard guard was utilized during food handling and/or failed to properly maintain temperatures in nourishment refrigerator.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews, for 9 of 9 sampled residents (Residents #14, #20, #25, #28, #29, #32, #39, #42, and #46) reviewed for resident assessment, the facility failed to transmit the resident's quarterly and/or annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments to the state agency in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and interview, for 1 of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #198), the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete.
18 fire safety citations on file: 10 on January 29, 2025, 4 on April 4, 2022, 4 on September 26, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 19, 2026 | Fine | $72,450 |
| October 2, 2025 | Fine | $147,976 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Connecticut | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.78 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.07 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.45 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.74 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 34.4% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 55.6% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.86 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.07 on weekdays and 3.07 on weekends, 25% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.59 in April to June 2025 to 3.78 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.78 | 0.59 | 4.07 | 3.07 | 0.6% | 0 of 90 | 198 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.60 | 0.55 | 3.85 | 2.95 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 203 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.56 | 0.54 | 3.78 | 2.99 | 0.8% | 0 of 92 | 207 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.59 | 0.56 | 3.82 | 3.00 | 0.9% | 0 of 91 | 213 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Connecticut, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.66 | 0.61 | 3.80 | 3.31 | 6.0% | 1.3% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.53 | $20.14 to $22.68 | 21,380 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $35.43 | $32.05 to $36.94 | 8,540 |
| Registered nurses | $49.39 | $41.40 to $58.58 | 40,110 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Connecticut | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.7 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.1 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.8 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.4 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Advanced Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (58.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Connecticut: 75 better, 2 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 110 eligible stays.
11.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Connecticut: 0 better, 3 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 133 eligible stays.
7.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Connecticut: 0 better, 2 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 100 eligible stays.
52.9% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut58.9% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 68 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 124 residents counted.
1.1% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut1.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 124 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Connecticut100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 17 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: ADVANCED CENTER FOR NURSING & REHABILITATION LLC. CMS links this home to Essential Healthcare, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gewirtz, Esther | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 15% | 08/01/2016 |
| Landa, Joseph | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 13% | 08/01/2016 |
| Landa, Joshua | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 13% | 08/01/2016 |
| Landa, Sari | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 10% | 08/01/2016 |
| Salamon, Menajem | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 40% | 09/07/2022 |
| Salamon, Mordejai | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 10% | 08/01/2016 |
| Salamon, Menajem | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/2016 | |
| Salamon, Menajem | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2016 | |
| Gewirtz, Jonathan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2016 | |
| Pascale, Jaclyn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/23/2025 | |
| Salamon, Menajem | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2016 | |
| Zaki, Shahzad | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Burg & Weingarten, Cpa, PC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Zella Healthcare Consulting LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2025 | |
| Gewirtz, Esther | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2016 | |
| Landa, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2025 | |
| Landa, Joshua | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2025 | |
| Landa, Sari | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2025 | |
| Pascale, Jaclyn | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/19/2025 | |
| Salamon, Menajem | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2025 | |
| Salamon, Mordejai | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2025 | |
| Zaki, Shahzad | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/19/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Connecticut. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.