Home / Connecticut / Stamford
494 Elm St., Stamford, CT 06902 · Western Ct County · (203) 325-0200
124 certified beds, about 117 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1988
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075320 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 27, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 24 health citations since December 2021, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $8,018 in the last three years; the largest was $8,018, and the latest is dated July 11, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.48 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.45 of those hours.
34.7% 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 24 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation review, observation of facility video, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a resident with dementia that was dependent for personal care and mobility and had no physician orders for opioids was free from exposure to opioids. The resident was identified unresponsive to verbal or tactile stimulation with pinpoint pupils, and was transferred to the hospital where he/she was diagnosed with suspected opioid intoxication, received Narcan, and had two (2) laboratory tests that were positive for opioids, resulting in a finding of Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and facility documentation review for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from misappropriation of resident property.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and facility documentation review for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure staff followed accepted medication administration practices administration practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on a tour of the Dietary Department, observations, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to ensure food temperatures were consistently obtained and logged prior to serving meals, refrigerator and freezer temperatures were consistently monitored and documented, dishwasher temperatures were consistently monitored and documented prior to washing dishes, sanitizer solution was consistently tested and logged prior to use to disinfect pots and pans and kitchen surfaces per manufacturer recommendations, and dietary staff wore a beard guard when preparing and serving food.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of the facility Infection Control Program, facility documents facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to provide education regarding the Covid Vaccine to staff members offering to provide the vaccine or inform where staff could obtain a Covid vaccination, and the facility failed to ensure documentation of screening residents for the eligibility to receive the Covid vaccine was completed, and residents and responsible parties received copies of Covid Vaccination educational materials prior to deciding to vaccinate or decline vaccination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for dining, the facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, review of facility policy and staff interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #6) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to keep the resident safe from physical and verbal abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #21 and Resident# 117) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), the facility failed to ensure the state agency was updated subsequent to the residents' new psychiatric diagnoses.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to revise the resident plan of care regarding pressure ulcer interventions to prevent skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #23) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided and or offered showers.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 4 Residents (Resident #52) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a therapeutic diet was provided with food items to meet the needs of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility documentation, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that staff provided the resident with the required assistance with bed mobility and as a result, Resident #1 fell out of bed and sustained a left femur (thigh bone) fracture.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of Resident Information, review of policy and interviews, the facility failed to inform residents of how to complete a grievance and ensure forms were accessible and available to residents and visitors.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 7 sampled residents for (Resident #13) who were reviewed for range of motion, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was revised for a resident with identified with physical limitations of the hands and for (Resident # 98), the facility failed to develop a care plan to address the residents skin integrity to prevent further skin break down and for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accidents for (Resident # 54), the facility failed to revise the resident's care plan timely post fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, observations, and interview for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident # 98), the facility failed to ensure staff consistently provided evidence of turning and repositioning the resident prior to the development of a pressure ulcer and the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were obtained for recommendations made by a consulting wound physician contributing to the pressure ulcer's further decline.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #13 and Resident #97) reviewed for position and mobility, the facility failed to ensure further evaluation and timely treatment were implemented for resident(s) with newly identified limited mobility to maintain, improve or prevent further decline in range of motion and mobility over time and for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for contractures ( Resident # 86) the facility failed to ensure the application of braces and/or splints as per physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on the tour of the Dietary Department, observations, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean, sanitary manner and failed to ensure staff applied proper beard guards and failed to consistently labeled and stored food to reflect their age or shelf life.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #72) reviewed for missing property, the facility failed to ensure a report of a missing item was thoroughly investigated to conclude loss or theft and Observations of the facility environment, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary environment by ensuring a rusted medicine cabinet without doors was replaced and for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #88) who was reviewed for environment, the facility failed to provide a clean, home like environment related to cleaning of a small appliance which was provided by the facility and based on observations and interviews for 3 of 4 shower rooms, the facility failed to provide a homelike, sanitary, and safe environment for the 3 of 4 showers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident #45), observed during medication administration, the facility failed to meet professional standards when staff borrowed(Resident # 202 's Lactulose medication to administer to Resident # 45 when the resident's medication was not available.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy, staff interviews for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for specialized treatment (Resident #48), the facility failed to consistently maintain the resident's communication log regarding the resident's status with the specialized treatment center.
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 accidents, the facility failed to ensure a resident had an elopement risk evaluation when the resident expressed intentions on leaving the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, review of facility policy and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #28 and Resident #71) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to follow physician orders for every 1 hour re-positioning for Resident #28 and failed to ensure a thorough assessment was completed when a pressure area was identified and failed to ensure a wound consultant's recommendations were reviewed and implemented in a timely manner for Resident #71.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and staff interview for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for medication administration (Resident #92), the facility failed to ensure the medication cart and resident medications were secured.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and interview for 1 of 12 residents observed during medication administration (Resident #92) the facility failed to administer medication appropriately therefore causing the medication error rate to be above 5%.
31 fire safety citations on file: 3 on April 27, 2026, 19 on July 11, 2024, 9 on December 20, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 11, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
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) | 3.48 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.45 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.16 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.23 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.81 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 34.7% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 36.4% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.76 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 3.61 on weekdays and 3.16 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 19.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.50 in April to June 2025 to 3.48 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 | 3.48 | 0.45 | 3.61 | 3.16 | 19.1% | 0 of 90 | 117 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.44 | 0.50 | 3.55 | 3.14 | 16.8% | 0 of 92 | 116 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.52 | 0.54 | 3.67 | 3.16 | 19.0% | 0 of 92 | 119 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.50 | 0.48 | 3.63 | 3.17 | 20.9% | 0 of 91 | 120 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 18.9 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.3 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 39.5 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.0 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.3 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Ark Healthcare & Rehabilitation at St. Camillus's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.9% 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. 87 eligible stays.
12.0% 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. 127 eligible stays.
7.3% 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. 76 eligible stays.
52.6% 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. 57 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. 92 residents counted.
0.9% 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. 92 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. 6 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: ST CAMILLUS STAMFORD OPCO LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fried, Akiva | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 17% | 10/15/2020 |
| Sodden, Aaron | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 17% | 10/15/2020 |
| Wiesel, Allan | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 17% | 10/15/2020 |
| Fried, Akiva | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/15/2020 | |
| Sodden, Aaron | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/15/2020 | |
| Stein, Allen | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/15/2020 | |
| Wiesel, Allan | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/15/2020 | |
| Fried, Akiva | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/15/2020 | |
| Sodden, Aaron | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/15/2020 | |
| Stein, Allen | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/15/2020 | |
| Wiesel, Allan | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/15/2020 |
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.