Home / Connecticut / Branford
189 Alps Road, Branford, CT 06405 · South Central Ct County · (203) 481-6221
190 certified beds, about 181 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1980
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075296 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 5, 2026, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 42 health citations since January 2020, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $8,021 in the last three years; the largest was $8,021, and the latest is dated July 24, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.75 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.64 of those hours.
54.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
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 42 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, police reports, forensic laboratory findings and interviews for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #3) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to protect a cognitively impaired, non-verbal resident from sexual abuse by another resident. Resident #3 lacked the cognitive ability to consent to sexual activity and forensic DNA testing confirmed the presence of Resident #2's DNA on Resident #3's oral and genital swabs.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #57) reviewed for activities of daily living, the facility failed to ensure podiatry services were provided timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on a tour of the Dietary Department, review of facility policy and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure stored food was dated when opened, expired food was discarded, and a cleaning chemical was not stored in a refrigerator designated for resident food.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, review of the clinical record and facility policy for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for transmission-based precautions, the facility failed notify the resident of the need and reason for isolation precautions and the facility failed to ensure isolation precautions were maintained for a resident with an undiagnosed respiratory illness. Additionally, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #124) reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), the facility failed to donn (wear) the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during care of a gastrostomy tube, and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #144) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure infection control standards of practice were followed during a dressing change.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical record, interviews and facility policy for one sampled resident reviewed for skin conditions ( Resident #13) the facility failed to measure a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line to assess for possible migration according to the plan of care and for 2 of 6 (Resident #41 and Resident #58) residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs), the facility failed to ensure the care plan was comprehensive to include refusals for shaving for Resident #41 and trimming of fingernails for Resident #58.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 2 residents (Resident #15, Resident #104), the facility failed to ensure medication was administered timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 2 residents observed utilizing an air mattress (Resident #14 and Resident #124), the facility failed to ensure the air mattresses were set according to physician orders and for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #186) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to follow physician orders regarding obtaining vital signs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record and facility policy, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #144) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure a treatment was ordered timely when a pressure ulcer was identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy, record review, and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #95) observed with medication at the bedside, the facility failed to properly secure the medication and for 6 residents interviewed (Resident #5, Resident #32, Resident #33, Resident #40, Resident #93, and Resident #106), the facility failed to ensure the wheels on the bed were in the locked position, causing one of the residents (Resident #33) to sustain a laceration during an independent transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for nutrition the facility failed to ensure a re-weight was obtained timely to identify a significant weight loss
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and facility policy for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #124) reviewed for tube feeding, the facility failed to ensure a tube feeding was initiated on time and failed to ensure gastric-tube (g-tube) length was verified prior to administration of tube feeding per physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was set at the appropriate setting per physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled according to professional standards and failed to ensure controlled narcotic medications were stored under double lock at all times.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #5) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to provide adaptive equipment at mealtime per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to provide follow-up to residents in attendance at Resident Council meetings related to resident concerns and failed to attempt alternative measures with a re-occurring issue.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews for 1 of 6 shower rooms, the facility failed to ensure the shower room was kept in a clean manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the provider was notified for each missed administration of insulin.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Residents #1) who was a new admission and reviewed for medication orders, the facility failed to collaborate with the pharmacy to ensure a medication was clarified and delivered to the facility to prevent the resident from missing four (4) days of insulin.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Residents #1) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to document in the clinical record when the medication was not available and what interventions were initiated.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1), reviewed for wandering, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision for a resident with known exit seeking behaviors, to ensure the resident was not able to exit the facility without staff knowledge, and the facility failed to ensure interventions were placed after elopement behaviors were identified. The failures resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1), reviewed for wandering, the facility failed to ensure that the family and APRN were notified of an application of a wander guard (security bracelet) due to exit seeking behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1), reviewed for wandering, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident with known wandering behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and interview for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to complete weekly wound assessments in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for medication administration, (Resident #2), the facility failed to ensure the resident was administered the correct dose of medication which resulted in a medication error.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #2) reviewed for laboratory services, the facility failed to ensure the physician's ordered blood work was obtained.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for one of two residents (Resident #2) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure staff utilized leg rests when moving a wheelchair dependent resident to prevent an injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #2) who were dependent on staff with getting in and out of the bed and chair, the facility failed to utilize safety measures, a gait belt and rolling walker during a two (2) person stand-pivot transfer into the wheelchair to prevent a healing skin tear from reopening.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an accurate record of the dishwasher temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #118) reviewed for discharge planning, the facility failed to ensure a second interdisplinary discharge care plan meeting, requested by the resident due to questions and concerns, took place.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #14 and 50) who required assistance with care, the facility failed to ensure the call bell was within reach.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #118) reviewed for discharge planning, the facility failed to honor the resident's choice/request of being dressed, out of bed and ready to attend his/her discharge care plan meeting with the interdisciplinary team.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, policy and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #122) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #387) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the state agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record and interview for 1 resident (Resident #69), the facility failed to ensure the Registered Nurse stayed with the resident to ensure the resident consumed medications prior to the RN leaving the room.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #90) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL), the facility failed to ensure the resident was provided a shower on scheduled shower days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #14) reviewed for hearing services, facility failed to ensure the resident was seen by an audiologist in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure the air mattress was on the correct setting according to the residents weight.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interview for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #67) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure the prescribed supplement was monitored and the amount consumed was documented per physician's orders, for a resident at risk for weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interview for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #79) reviewed for enteral tube feeding, the facility failed to ensure water bolus physician orders were consistent, failed to ensure appropriate labeling of tube feeding solution and water bolus bag, and failed to ensure cleanliness of the tube feeding pump.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #127) reviewed for respiratory services, the facility failed to follow the physician's orders related to oxygen administration and failed to ensure oxygen tubing and nebulizer tubing were labeled and dated per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #14) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the nurse used infection control practices according to professional standards during medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on an observation, a review of the clinical record, staff interviews, and a review of the facility policy, for one sampled resident (Resident #95) reviewed for oxygen administration, the facility failed to change the oxygen tubing in accordance with the physician's orders.
12 fire safety citations on file: 3 on February 5, 2026, 7 on December 6, 2022, 2 on January 27, 2020.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 24, 2024 | Fine | $8,021 |
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) | 3.75 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.64 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.46 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.34 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.78 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 54.0% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.90 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 3.87 on weekdays and 3.46 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 39.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.81 in April to June 2025 to 3.75 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 | 3.75 | 0.64 | 3.87 | 3.46 | 39.6% | 0 of 90 | 181 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.80 | 0.69 | 3.95 | 3.39 | 38.9% | 0 of 92 | 177 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.58 | 0.74 | 3.76 | 3.13 | 38.7% | 0 of 92 | 177 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.81 | 0.68 | 4.00 | 3.34 | 40.0% | 0 of 91 | 181 |
| 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 | 22.0 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 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 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.8 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.6 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.7 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.7 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.0 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Ark Healthcare & Rehabilitation at Branford Hills's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (64.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
64.1% this home
Better than 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. 348 eligible stays.
9.9% 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. 335 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. 270 eligible stays.
53.9% 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. 182 residents counted.
0.4% 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. 251 residents counted.
2.7% 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. 251 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. 15 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: ABH OPCO LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fried, Akiva | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 17% | 06/30/2022 |
| Sodden, Aaron | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 17% | 06/30/2022 |
| Wiesel, Allan | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 17% | 06/30/2022 |
| Sodden, Aaron | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 06/30/2022 | |
| Fried, Akiva | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/30/2022 | |
| Sodden, Aaron | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/30/2022 | |
| Stein, Allen | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/30/2022 | |
| Wiesel, Allan | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/30/2022 |
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.