Home / Connecticut / New Britain
400 Brittany Farms Rd, New Britain, CT 06053 · Capitol County · (860) 224-3111
282 certified beds, about 254 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1979
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075292 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 24, 2026, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 25 health citations since November 2021, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,618 in the last three years; the largest was $10,618, and the latest is dated April 24, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.39 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.32 of those hours.
48.1% 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 25 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations, clinical record review, facility documentation, and facility policy, the facility failed to maintain a safe environment for residents in two distinct areas, resulting in the findings of Immediate Jeopardy. First, the facility failed to conduct adequate monitoring of hot water temperatures and to communicate and act upon documented temperatures exceeding 120 F, resulting in water temperatures ranging from 126.3 F to 145.4 F in 44 of 64 resident rooms on the second and third floors. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #16) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin (bruise above the left eyebrow) to the state agency within established timeframes.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #16) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an injury of unknown origin.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review and interview for 1 of 8 sampled residents (Resident #16) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to update/ revise the resident's care plan for behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #117) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL), the facility failed to ensure Resident #117 was ambulated per physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, and review of facility policy for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #85) reviewed for blood glucose monitoring, the facility failed to maintain appropriate infection control practices during blood glucose monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the one (1) of (3) three residents (Resident #1), reviewed for the discharge process, the facility failed to notify the homecare agency timely of a discharge delaying start of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for admission plan of care, (Resident #1), the facility failed to follow physician's orders regarding a medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for care planning, the facility failed to ensure care plan was comprehensive.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Resident #87) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to notify the physician and resident representative regarding a significant weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for two sampled residents (Resident #81 and #160) receiving anticoagulant medication, the facility failed to ensure the care plan included interventions to address the possible side effects and the monitoring that should accompany the use of an anticoagulant.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Resident #87) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure the dietician assessed the resident for weight loss timely and failed to obtain the resident's monthly weight in accordance to facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #166) observed self-administering medications, the facility failed to ensure the resident was assessed for self-administration of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #126), the facility failed to ensure the physician's order and the resident's signed Advance Directives were congruent.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #42) reviewed for positioning and range of motion, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was in place for the use of splints and for one sampled resident (Resident #213) who had orders for a compounded medication, the facility failed to ensure expired medication was not administered to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #213) who had physician orders for a compounded medication, the facility failed to ensure the medicaion was administered as ordered. Resident #213's diagnoses included protein calorie malnutrition, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) without esophagitis, and end stage renal disease. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #213 had intact cognition and was dependent for eating, oral hygiene, toileting, showering/bathing, and dressing. The Resident Care Plan dated 3/20/24 identified the resident has a nutritional problem or related to advanced age, therapeutic diet, mechanically altered diet, fluid restriction, food allergy, tube feeding supplementation diet, poor by mouth intake, increased nutritional needs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled medication rooms the facility failed to store medications appropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews, for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #42 and Resident #230) reviewed for infection surveillance, the facility failed to identify and maintain records of residents with known MDRO colonization and failed to appropriately cohort residents with a known MDRO colonization.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, and interviews for three sampled residents (Residents #25, #104, and #170) reviewed for resident assessments, the facility failed to ensure quarterly MDS assessments were completed and submitted within prescribed timing parameters.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel files, review of facility policy, and interviews for two of three sampled nurse aides (NA #1 and #3) the facility failed to complete annual performance evaluations.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, policy, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who were a new admission and received a medication to treat a low thyroid level, Levothyroxine, the facility failed to transcribe the medication on admission to ensure the resident was free of a significant medication error.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who were a new admission, the facility failed to implement the physician's order and obtain laboratory blood work.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #538) reviewed for Advance Directives, the facility failed to ensure the physician's order reflected the resident written choice.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #539) who was a recent admission and exhibited behavioral symptoms, the facility failed to transcribe a physician's order from the discharging facility to include the indication of use directive for an as needed medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #77) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care consistent with professional practice.
23 fire safety citations on file: 11 on April 24, 2026, 7 on May 10, 2024, 5 on November 24, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 24, 2026 | Fine | $10,618 |
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) | 3.39 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.32 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.10 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.10 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.97 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 48.1% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.37 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 3.50 on weekdays and 3.10 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 24.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.50 in April to June 2025 to 3.39 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 | 3.39 | 0.32 | 3.50 | 3.10 | 24.4% | 0 of 90 | 254 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.48 | 0.37 | 3.59 | 3.21 | 23.2% | 0 of 92 | 245 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.50 | 0.39 | 3.59 | 3.27 | 23.0% | 0 of 92 | 247 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.50 | 0.36 | 3.60 | 3.25 | 20.9% | 0 of 91 | 253 |
| 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 | 15.3 | 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 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.2 | 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 long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.2 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 30.4 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.0 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at New Britain's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (63.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
63.6% 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. 263 eligible stays.
10.4% 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. 251 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. 154 eligible stays.
70.5% 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. 139 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. 228 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 228 residents counted.
98.7% 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. 76 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: NEW BRITAIN OPERATIONS 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Britain Parent LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/01/2015 |
| New Britain Associates Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2015 | |
| New Britain Realty LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 01/01/2015 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Dauphinais, Karl | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2015 | |
| Schechter, Joshua | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2015 | |
| New Britain Associates Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2015 | |
| New Britain Parent LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2015 | |
| New Britain Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2015 | |
| Dauphinais, Karl | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2015 | |
| Schechter, Joshua | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2018 | |
| Stern, Aryeh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2015 |
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.