Home / Connecticut / Naugatuck
89 Weid Drive, Naugatuck, CT 06770 · Naugatuck Vly County · (203) 729-9889
126 certified beds, about 117 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1993
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075390 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 5, 2026, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 52 health citations since February 2022, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,801 in the last three years; the largest was $16,801, and the latest is dated May 2, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.68 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.55 of those hours.
32.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to National Health Care Associates, an affiliated group of 42 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 52 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation review, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the record was complete and accurate to include physical therapy directions regarding use of a gait belt.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 24 sampled residents (Resident #41) reviewed for advanced directives, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives were consistent throughout the clinical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident/staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure that food items were maintained at a palatable and appetizing temperature at time of serving.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for pressure ulcers and for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #15) reviewed for a tracheostomy, the facility failed to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during wound and tracheostomy care. Additionally, for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for skin conditions, and for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #60) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed to implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBP).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews for 1 of 5 (Resident #42) reviewed for dining, the facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for accidents the facility failed to follow the plan of care for a resident with a history of falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of the clinical record, and review of facility policy for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #109) reviewed for issues with care, the facility failed to revise the resident's care plan following a staff-related grievance that resulted in a change to how care was delivered.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #41) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure administration of the correct medication according to professional standards of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #13 and Resident #41) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's), the facility failed to provide nail care for residents who required assistance with personal care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1of 1 resident reviewed for positioning/mobility, the facility failed to follow physician orders regarding skin protection (Resident #14) and for 1 of 5 residents, (Resident #125) reviewed for dining, the facility failed to ensure meal supervision and feeding by staff was provided in accordance with physician order and the plan of care, resulting in a choking incident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record, interviews, facility documentation and facility policy for 1 of 3 (Resident #13) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure that an alternating air pressure mattress was implemented timely per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, interviews and facility policy for the only sampled resident (Resident #13) reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence/catheter, the facility failed to ensure Urologist orders were implemented for changing a urinary catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and staff interviews for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #14) reviewed for hospice, the facility failed to review and respond to pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 2 (Resident #116) reviewed for positioning/mobility, the facility failed to provide rehabilitation services as recommended by the orthopedic physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled resident (Resident #107) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to provide the required notification of the transfer/discharge to the state Ombudsman's office.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #2) review for Pre-admission Screening Resident Review (PASRR), the facility failed to notify the PASRR agency to complete a Level 2 screen for a resident with a psychiatric diagnosis. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from another long-term care facility with diagnoses that included psychotic disorder with hallucinations related to physiological conditions, Parkinsons disease and hypertension. A Level 1 PASRR screen dated 2/1/19 (transferred with Resident #2 from the previous long term care facility) identified Resident #2 had no psychiatric history and therefore a Level 2 evaluation was not required. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure supervision was provided in accordance with the resident plan of care, to prevent a resident incident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one of three Residents (Resident #1) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to provide a timely Dietician evaluation to address a documented significant weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1 and #3) reviewed for pressure injuries, the facility failed to complete and document skin risk assessment weekly post re-admission per facility protocol.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed ensure the resident was free from neglect and care was provided timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure care was provided in accordance with physician orders and failed to ensure the NA reported when she could not provide care timely, resulting in a delay in care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who's medications were put on hold when the resident was transferred to the Emergency Department, the facility failed notify the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse or physician at the time when the medications were not resumed when the resident returned to the facility, therefore the medications were omitted for eleven (11) days.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #4) who were reviewed for an allegation of abuse, the facility failed to ensure appropriate supervision, for a resident on one-to-one (1:1) supervision due to aggressive and sexual behaviors, to prevent the resident from having inappropriate physical contact with another resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for transfer to the Emergency Department, the facility failed to ensure the residents' medication regimen was accurately reconciled after returning from the hospital to prevent the omission of medications for eleven (11) days.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were required staff assistance with personal hygiene, the facility failed to maintain safety to prevent the resident from falling out of the bed while turning and repositioning the resident when incontinent care was provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and staff interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for neglect the facility failed to provide incontinent care in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for the implementation of their care plan, the facility failed to ensure the care plan intervention of two (2) staff members for all care for Resident #1 was followed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, and staff interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #101) reviewed for non-compliance with smoking, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and failed to implement interventions to prevent an accident hazard after repeated incidents of noncompliance related to smoking. These failures resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record reviews, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 4 residents (Resident # 418) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to perform wound care as prescribed by the physician to prevent further skin breakdown and for (Resident # 90), the facility failed to ensure weekly skin audits were completed in accordance with the facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility policy and interviews for 11 of 12 sample residents (Resident #20, Resident #21, Resident #44, Resident #45, Resident #54, Resident #61, Resident #72, Resident #76, Resident #98, Resident #102, and Resident #109) reviewed for timely physician's visits, the facility failed to ensure physician's visits were conducted timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy and interview for 4 nursing units, the facility failed to ensure medications stored in the medication carts were labeled, refrigerator temperatures that contain vaccines were taken and documented consistently twice daily and for 1 of 1resident (Resident #101) observed on tour, the facility failed to properly secure medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff applied a beard guard when preparing food to ensure a sanitary environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record interviews and facility policy for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #268) reviewed for change in condition , the facility failed to ensure staff notified the physician and the responsible party when the resident experienced a change in condition and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #418) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to notify physician when a treatments were not provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, review of facility grievance file for 1 of 2 residents ( Resident #74) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure a residents grievance was addressed timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #92) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRR), the facility failed to ensure a resident had a PASRR II or Level of Care re-screen completed upon admission to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records, review of policy and interviews for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications( Resident #74), the facility failed to failed to ensure that the resident's care plan address the resident's use of antipsychotic medications per plan and for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #92) reviewed for PASSR, the facility failed to ensure the facility developed a comprehensive care plan for a resident with a history of mental disorder.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 101) reviewed for smoking in a non-smoking facility, the facility failed to review and revise the resident's care plan to ensure safety as the resident continued to be non-compliant with smoking in the facility
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record review, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident # 418) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were transcribed and preformed per physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #101) reviewed for bowel and bladder, the facility failed to assess the resident ability for self-care of a colostomy secondary to resident's refusals to allow staff to provide the care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interviews for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for oxygen (Resident #80), the facility failed to ensure the resident received oxygen therapy as prescribed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, interview, and policy for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #74) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were obtained and reviewed and failed to ensure an AIMS assessment was completed timely for a resident who was started on an antipsychotic medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interview for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 101) reviewed for smoking, the facility failed to ensure that a copy of the resident's conservatorship was in the clinical record in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices of complete an accurate medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews, review of policy and interviews for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #74) reviewed for urinary catheter the facility failed to ensure the catheter collection bag was stored in a sanitary manner and for 1 of 1 resident ( Resident # 101) observed during a tour of the facility, the facility failed to ensure that resident equipment was stored in a sanitary manner to prevent the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Residents #4 and #5) who were reviewed for an allegation of resident to resident sexual abuse, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was not touched inappropriately by Resident #5.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who was dependent on staff with getting in and out of the bed and chair and who had sustained a laceration, the facility failed to ensure the safety of Resident #1 during a Hoyer lift transfer into the bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #87 and Resident #94) reviewed for dental services, the facility failed to ensure Resident #87 and Resident #94 were seen by dentist in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one of twelve residents reviewed for Advance Directives (Resident #25), the facility failed to obtain a physician's order related to the resident's preferred code status.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two sampled residents (Residents #16 and #94) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the residents were free from mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #50) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision during a meal and failed to follow the facility aspiration precautions policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #77 and Resident #99) reviewed for a significant weight loss, that facility failed to document the amount consumed from a nutritional supplement (Resident #77), failed to obtain a re-admission weight and failed to consistently obtain daily weights per physician orders for Resident #99.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #109) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to ensure Social Services documented Resident #109 leaving Against Medical Advice (AMA), failed to follow up with Resident #109/Person #2 after leaving AMA and failed to notify Elderly Protective (EPS) when Person #1 signed Resident #109 out Against Medical Advice (AMA).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #109) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to document the notification to the physician/Advanced Practice Registered Nurse when Person #2 signed Resident #109 out Against Medical Advice (AMA).
4 fire safety citations on file: 4 on May 2, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2024 | Fine | $16,801 |
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) | 3.68 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.55 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.32 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.19 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.94 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 32.2% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.9% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.82 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 3.83 on weekdays and 3.32 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.83 in April to June 2025 to 3.68 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 | 3.68 | 0.55 | 3.83 | 3.32 | 2.6% | 0 of 90 | 117 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.65 | 0.49 | 3.79 | 3.30 | 3.5% | 0 of 92 | 119 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.91 | 0.53 | 4.06 | 3.52 | 5.6% | 0 of 92 | 117 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.83 | 0.54 | 3.97 | 3.46 | 3.8% | 0 of 91 | 116 |
| 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 | 9.9 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 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 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.4 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.4 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.1 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.2 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Beacon Brook Center for Health & Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.9% 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. 129 eligible stays.
8.8% 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. 153 eligible stays.
6.6% 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. 90 eligible stays.
61.1% 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. 36 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. 66 residents counted.
5.5% 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. 66 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. 13 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: BEACON BROOK ACQUISITION OPERATOR LLC. CMS links this home to National Health Care Associates, a group of 42 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mydert Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 51% | 06/07/2024 |
| Zadun Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 49% | 06/07/2024 |
| Cedar Hill Capital Associates LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Ilana Ostreicher Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Juniper Capital Associates LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Marc Ephram Ostreicher Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Oak Management Capital LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Ysro Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Ehrenfeld, Mindy | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| Gilmartin, Thomas | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| Ostreicher, Marc | Corporate director | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| Gilmartin, Thomas | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| National Health Care Associates Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Gilmartin, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| Rayford, Danita | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| Baker Tilly Advisory Group LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| David Ostreicher Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/03/2025 | |
| Ilana Ostreicher Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/03/2025 | |
| Marc Ephram Ostreicher Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/03/2025 | |
| Michelle Ostreicher Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/03/2025 | |
| National Health Care Associates Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Preferred Therapy Solutions LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Procare LTC Holding LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/07/2024 | |
| Osowski, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/07/2024 | |
| Rayford, Danita | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/07/2024 |
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.