Home / Connecticut / Madison
34 Wildwood Avenue, Madison, CT 06443 · South Central Ct County · (203) 245-8008
90 certified beds, about 83 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075405 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 25, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 48 health citations since July 2021, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $15,593 in the last three years; the largest was $15,593, and the latest is dated September 27, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.17 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.42 of those hours.
40.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Autumn Lake Healthcare, an affiliated group of 59 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 48 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and facility policy reviewed for the initial tour of the kitchen, the facility failed ensure thawing of meat per the requirement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation, interviews and policy review for 2 of 2 samples residents (Resident #33 and Resident #58) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to honor the residents right to make choices within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #30 and Resident #33) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to follow their grievance policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of clinical record, and facility policy for 1 of 5 (Resident #58) residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report an allegation of neglect to the State Agency within the 24-hour time requirement.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of clinical record, and facility policy for 1 of 5 sampled residents, (Resident #58) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled residents (Resident #43) reviewed for skin conditions, the facility failed to follow professional standards of care for the utilization of a post surgically placed wound vac.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled residents (Resident #43) reviewed for skin conditions, the facility failed to obtain physician order to instruct care for a wound vac for a post-surgical resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #58) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to implement interventions for pressure ulcer prevention per the Resident Care Plan, report a change in skin integrity, and prevent the development of a pressure ulcer. Resident #58's diagnoses included fracture of the right femur, anxiety, and parkinsonism. The Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #58's skin was normal in color, warm and dry, and no pressure ulcers or deep tissue injuries were present. The admission Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 8/5/2025 identified Resident #58 was at risk for skin breakdown related to impaired mobility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for the only sampled resident (Resident #9) reviewed for specialized treatments, the facility failed to communicate and collaborate with the specialized treatment center.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy while touring on the Tunxis Unit, the facility failed to ensure resident medications were properly stored and for 2 of 2 medication storage rooms, the facility failed to ensure narcotics were properly secured.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of clinical records, review of photographs, and review of facility policy for 1 sampled resident (Resident #43) reviewed for discharge and 2 additional previously discharged residents (Resident #48 and Resident #89) the facility failed to ensure protected personal information remained secured and private.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and staff interviews for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #83, and #89) reviewed for blood glucose testing, the facility failed to clean and disinfect a Glucometer (glucose testing) device per the manufacturer's instructions for use.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Residents #1 and #2) who were reviewed for a resident-to-resident altercation, Resident #1 had the right to be free from physical abuse by Resident #2.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for end of life, the facility failed ensure the responsible party was notified timely when a change in skin integrity was identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for end-of-life care, the facility ensure a complete and accurate record to include records prior to facility ownership, to include documentation of ADL care, documentation of hospice services and documentation of an assessment of death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review policy and interviews for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #9 and Resident #62) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to prevent the development of pressure ulcers and failed to provide the necessary treatment and services for residents with a pressure ulcer. For Resident #9, the facility failed to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer in a dependent resident, failed to ensure timely turning and repositioning and off-loading/floating (removal of pressure from a body part), failed to conduct pressure ulcer risk assessments per the facility policy, and failed to conduct weekly skin assessments. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation, resident council minutes, facility policy, review of facility staffing hours, and interviews, the facility failed to adequately staff Nurse Aides (NA) throughout the facility resulting in resident care needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy, facility documentation, and interviews for 2 of 2 resident units, for Resident #'s 28, 51, 61, 278, and 428, who were reviewed for receiving a nourishing snack when mealtimes exceeded 14 hours, the facility failed to provide adequate snacks.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to follow infection control practices on 1 of 2 units to provide a clean environment for Resident #53, and for the Infection Control Program, failed to ensure all required infection control policies and procedures were present in the Infection Control Manuals.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility Resident Council meeting documentation, interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to adequately respond to resident grievances.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews for 2 of 2 nursing units reviewed for the environment, the facility failed to ensure equipment and furniture was maintained in a clean, comfortable home-like manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 5 of 35 residents (Resident #21, #27, #46, #53 and #69) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), the facility failed to ensure personal hygiene care and services was provided to dependent residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 units for Resident #2, #51, #57 and #279 reviewed for oxygen therapy, the facility failed to appropriately label oxygen tubing.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel files for 2 of 3 Nurse Aides (NA #10 and NA #11), facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to complete annual performance appraisals.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of five residents (Resident #62) reviewed for unnecessary medication, and for the only sampled resident (Resident #527) reviewed for physical restraint, the facility failed to ensure that behavior monitoring was completed on a resident receiving psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on the clinical record review, facility policy and interviews for 1 sampled resident (Resident #61) reviewed for dentition, the facility failed to provide dental services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure safe water temperatures for 1 of 2 units in resident areas.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Nurse Aide (NA) #1 and NA #10 completed 12 hours of in-service education annually, and failed to provide evidence that all NAs were provided the mandatory 12 hours of in-service training.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #477) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure a urinary privacy bag was utilized.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 3 of 4 residents, (Resident #21, 428, and 527), reviewed for advance directive, the facility failed to ensure Resident #21's current preference for code status was present in the clinical (paper and electronic) health record to appropriately direct staff in the event of a medical emergency and failed to ensure Resident #428 and 527 had an advance directive code status present in the clinical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #47) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure the resident representative was notified of a significant weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #527) who was reviewed for a physical restraint, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to be free from a physical restraint.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #527) who was reviewed for a physical restraint, the facility failed to report the allegation of mistreatment to the state agency in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, observation, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #6, #68 and #527) reviewed for falls, and for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, (Resident #9), the facility failed to update the resident care plan and failed to implement interventions to the resident's care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and observation for the only sampled resident (Resident #23) reviewed for foot care, the facility failed to provide podiatry services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Residents #6, 68, & 527) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions were implemented, failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a fall, and failed to conduct a risk assessment following falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #21) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to provide notice to the Ombudsman regarding resident transfers to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, staff interview, and review of facility policy for one sampled resident (Resident #21) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to provide the required notification of bed hold policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for two (2) of three (3) staff members (NA #1 and #2) reviewed for abuse training, the facility failed to ensure direct care staff completed the annual abuse prohibition training.
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 care plans the facility failed to create a care plan and interventions for a resident with identified behavioral concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews for 5 of 7 residents (Resident #34, Resident #43, Resident #47, Resident #51 and Resident #54) reviewed for activities of daily living, the facilty failed to ensure timely incontinent care, bathing and failed to offer out of bed assistance to residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, facilty documentation and staff interviews for 5 of 24 sampled residents (Resident #34, Resident #43, Resident #47, Resident #51, and Resident #54) reviewed for timeliness of personal care and meal consumption documentation (Resident #51), the facilty failed to ensure adequate staffing to provide personal care and record meal consumption documentation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #119) reviewed for advanced directives, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives were in place to reflect the resident's choice to not have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record and staff interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure resident identification was verified prior to administering medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #67) reviewed for position/mobility, the facility failed to apply splints per physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #51) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure weights were obtained per physicians order, failed to consistently document meal intake and failed to report a significant weight loss to the Dietician timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility's documentation, review of facility's policy and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #67) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to change oxygen tubing per physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the facility policy, review of the clinical record and staff interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to sanitize the glucometer machine per facility's policy and manufacturer's recommendations.
24 fire safety citations on file: 7 on August 25, 2025, 17 on November 13, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 27, 2023 | Fine | $15,593 |
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) | 3.17 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.42 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.03 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.72 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.03 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 40.3% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 57.1% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.56 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 3.23 on weekdays and 3.03 on weekends, 6% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 19.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.68 in April to June 2025 to 3.17 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 | 3.17 | 0.42 | 3.23 | 3.03 | 19.5% | 0 of 90 | 83 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.28 | 0.48 | 3.37 | 3.05 | 18.1% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.54 | 0.51 | 3.65 | 3.28 | 12.2% | 0 of 92 | 77 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.68 | 0.60 | 3.77 | 3.46 | 8.8% | 0 of 91 | 68 |
| 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 | 21.0 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.3 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.3 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.3 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.1 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Madison's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (60.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.2% 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. 147 eligible stays.
10.3% 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. 154 eligible stays.
6.2% 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. 95 eligible stays.
76.6% 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. 64 residents counted.
1.2% 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. 82 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 82 residents counted.
100.0% this home
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. 38 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: 34 WILDWOOD AVE OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Autumn Lake Healthcare, a group of 59 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kc Derby Ct Al Opco Jv LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/28/2023 |
| Aut Ct7 Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/28/2023 |
| Schwartz, Mark | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2023 | |
| Griffin, Giovanna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/26/2024 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2023 | |
| Zumpano, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2023 | |
| Aut Ct7 Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/28/2023 | |
| Griffin, Giovanna | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2024 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/28/2023 | |
| Zumpano, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2023 |
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.