Home / Connecticut / Glastonbury
72 Salmon Brook Drive, Glastonbury, CT 06033 · Capitol County · (860) 653-9888
130 certified beds · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075060 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 25, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 81 health citations since March 2021, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $24,164 in the last three years; the largest was $15,340, and the latest is dated February 4, 2025.
31.8% 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 81 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews, for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure appropriate assessment, monitoring, and treatment of existing pressure ulcers. This included failure to complete Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk assessments in accordance with facility policy; failure to complete weekly skin assessments using the Skin Observation Tool; failure to obtain and document weekly pressure ulcer measurements and wound assessments; and failure to ensure an as needed dressing change order was in place to address dressing dislodgement or soiling.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation review and interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient laundry services to ensure resident laundry was completed timely due to broken washing machines.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interview, and review of clinical documentation and policy for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights, the facility failed to allow an alert and oriented resident access to an enclosed courtyard.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interview, and review of clinical documentation and policy for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the nurse who prepared a medication was the nurse who administered the medication, in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of the noon meal dining and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a meal that was appealing and palatable to residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of employee files and staff interviews for 1of 2 employees (Rehabilitation Aide # 2), the facility failed to provide evidence that a background check had been conducted for the employee.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of policy and staff interviews for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #20), the facility failed to ensure a suspected incident of intimidation was reported to the Administrator.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record reviews and staff interviews for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for discharge (Resident #97 and Resident #98), the facility failed to provide evidence of Ombudsman notification for transfers and discharge
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), the facility failed to refer a resident with known mental health diagnosis to the appropriate state- designated authority for a Level II evaluation and determination.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record review, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for behaviors (Resident #20 and Resident #89), the facility failed to follow and or develop a resident care plan for addressing the residents' mood and behaviors for the only resident reviewed for Hospice ( Resident #74) the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed for a resident receiving specialized services.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy and staff interview for the only resident reviewed for Dementia Care (Resident #89), the facility failed to revise the resident's comprehensive individualized interdisciplinary dementia care plan timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and staff interviews only the resident (Resident #65), reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL), the facility failed to ensure ADL care was provided every two hours per facility practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interview for the only sampled resident (Resident #20) reviewed for Communication/ Sensory, the facility failed to administer eye medications according to physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility staffing posting, resident interviews, review of the Facility Assessment and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to care for the needs of a dependent resident (Resident #65) in accordance to facility staffing ratios.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff closed and locked the nursing supervisor's office door with medications stored on counters in unsecured containers and unlocked cabinets when leaving the area. The facility failed to ensure Residents #20, # 21, 38, 71 and #80's eye drops located in one medication cart were dated once opened and failed to remove expired Intravenous Therapy equipment and medication. The facility failed to remove discharge resident medications timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of glucometer monitoring, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that used lancets were disposed of in a manner to contain and prevent any potential contamination/spread of bloodborne pathogens.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that laundry equipment within the facility was maintained timely and in proper working order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that building equipment was maintained to provide a clean, comfortable, home-like environment for the residents.
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 falls, the facility failed to ensure a fall intervention was implemented according to the plan of care and according to physician order, after a resident who was identified as a high fall risk, sustained a fall out of bed.
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 impaired skin integrity, the facility failed to ensure preventative interventions were initiated and implemented according to facility policy for a resident admitted to the facility with an active pressure injury and after the development of a facility acquired pressure injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #4) reviewed for dependent care, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate Nurse Aide documentation.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of five (5) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for podiatry services, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was added to the podiatrist's priority schedule following a diagnosis of an infection of the left great toe.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a resident identified as high risk for wandering received adequate supervision to ensure the resident was not able to leave the facility without staff knowledge, which resulted in the facility unable to locate the resident for 4 hours and 40 minutes. The failures resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for one of three (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure wander guard bracelet physician orders were obtained timely for residents identified as high wander risk and failed to ensure physician orders directed wander guard bracelet daily function checks.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, regarding medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the failed to ensure only authorized personnel had access to the keys, including keys to the medication rooms and medications, and failed to ensure separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for the storage of controlled drugs was maintained.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for facility Administration review, the facility failed to ensure the facility administered its resources effectively and to ensure effective administrative oversight of staff and resident care timely to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation, facility record review, and interviews for governing body review, the facility failed to ensure that they had a governing body, or designated persons functioning as a governing body that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies regarding the management and operation of the facility, and failed to ensure the Administrator was appointed by a governing body.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care, the facility failed to ensure the record was complete and accurate to include an RN assessment following an elopement.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation review and interviews for two of five employee files (NA #2 and NA #3) reviewed for in-service training, the facility failed to ensure the Nurse Aides had 12 hours of annual training.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #7) who were reviewed for an allegation of abuse, the facility failed to ensure a staff member did not video tape the resident and post the video on social [NAME].
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation and staff interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #2), the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation for an injury of unknown origin.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #3) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to complete neurological assessments following an unwitnessed fall, and for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #2), the facility failed to provide documentation of wrist stabilization per APRN recommendations following a fracture.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of personnel files and interviews for two (2) of four (4) personnel (Nurse Aide #2 and Nurse Aide #3) the facility failed to conduct annual performance evaluations.
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 allegation of neglect, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation for a resident with an allegation of neglect.
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 activities of daily living, the facility failed to ensure a resident who required extensive assistance with activities of daily living was provided incontinent care and turning and repositioning in accordance with the plan of care and physician orders.
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 neglect, the facility failed to ensure appropriate staffing to meet the needs of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for a change in condition, the facility failed to ensure hospital discharge orders were acted on timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the resident was transferred in accordance with physician orders and the plan of care to prevent an injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the environment, review of facility documentation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that resident areas , dinning room and equipment were maintained in a clean and comfortable homelike manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility admission/ transfer discharge and staff interview, the facility failed to provided evidence of monthly notification to the state Regional Ombudsman Office of residents' transfers and discharge status in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #11) reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASSR), the facility failed to submit a PASSR level of care when a change in the resident's mental status
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy and interviews for 1 resident (Resident # 28) reviewed for Position, Mobility, the facility failed to ensure the physician's orders were followed for a resting hand splint and for 1 of 5 residents observed dining ( Resident # 24), the facility failed to follow facility practice for staff supervision during meal time to meet profession practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 1 sampled resident (Resident #7) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to timely assist the resident with request to transfer to another facility and for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #51 and Resident # 369) reviewed for Hospice and /or death, the facility failed to ensure medically-related social services were provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records and interviews, for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident # 11), the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations that were approved by the physician were implemented and for Resident # 64, the pharmacy failed to notify the physician the resident's laboratory work was not completed .
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the noon tray line, review of facility documentation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide food at an appetizing temperature .
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of kitchen, facility documentation, and interviews, the facility failed to properly label foods, discard expired food, maintain, and rotate emergency food supply stock, and serve food at professional standards.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews and staff interviews for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #29, Resident #32, Resident #77, and Resident #86) reviewed for dining, the facility failed to provide a dignified dining experience by ensuring all residents were served at the same time.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 1 sampled resident (Resident #7) reviewed for person-centered care planning, the facility failed to ensure interdisciplinary care plan meetings were held with the resident and/or Conservator of Person (COP) to ensure participation in the plan of care .
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of Resident Personal Funds Account statements and staff interviews for 2 sampled residents (Resident # 28 and Resident # 37), the facility failed to ensure the resident and /or responsible party received quarterly Personal Fund Account summaries.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 3 of 5 sampled resident (Residents #1, #7 and # 61) reviewed for advance directives, the facility failed to review the resident's advanced directives to reflect the code status wishes of the resident and/or responsible party/conservator of person (COP) following admission and re-admission from the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Resident # 222) reviewed for abuse the facility failed to ensure the residents was free from verbal abuse and for ( Resident # 70), the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from physical abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident # 57), the facility failed to implement facility policy for investigating an allegation of physical abuse within 5 working days.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #6 and # 57), the facility failed to implement facility policy for investigating and reporting an allegation of abuse to the state agency within 2 hours.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #6 # and # 99), the facility failed to implement facility policy for protecting the resident during an investigation of allegation of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interview for 1 of 3 sampled residents for (Resident # 118) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to ensure the resident had a discharge care plan at the time of admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident# 59) reviewed for specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident's care plan was revised to include a port in the right chest.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview for 1 of 3 residents (Resident # 118) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to ensure the resident received a discharge summary prior to the resident's wishes to be discharge Against Medical Advice.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident, (Resident #64) reviewed for ADLs (Activities of Daily Living), the facility failed to assist the resident with applying footwear.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, review of facility and staff interview for 1 of 3 residents at risk for pressure ulcer development for( Resident # 89), the facility failed to ensure that the resident's air mattress was set according to the plan of care and for 1 of 3 residents at risk for skin break down (Resident # 356), the facility failed to provide evidence that staff consistently turn and repositioned and off loaded the residents heel to prevent further skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews for 1 sampled residents, (Resident #64), reviewed for accident, the facility failed to the resident received the necessary supervision to prevent an accident and for for 1 of 3 residents (Resident # 77) who require assistance with mechanical lift for transfers, the facility failed to ensure the resident's skin was safe during a transfer to prevent an injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, facility policy and interviews for 1 resident (Resident # 6) reviewed for Respiratory Care, the facility failed to ensure the physician's orders were followed regarding oxygen therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident# 59) reviewed for specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident's plan of care included emergency measures.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure sufficient direct care staffing in accordance with quarterly Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) staffing data report.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was available and was reflective of actual staff worked.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews for 1 resident (Resident # 98) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to address the resident's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) regarding fear of residents entering the room.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, and staff interview for 1 of 18 residents observed during dining, the facility failed to ensure the residents diet consistency was followed according to the plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and staff interviews for 1 of 3 residents for (Resident # 118) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to ensure the social worker document a note regarding the resident's discharge status and failed to ensure the facility employed a social worker to assist with resident with resident psychosocial needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facilityQuality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program, review of facility documentation, review of policy and interviews, the facility failed to implement and maintain effective comprehensive, data driven QAPI program .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the facility infection control program,, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to maintain measures to prevent growth of Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens in building systems according to facility practice and failed to perform hand hygiene after picking up a glove from the floor after disinfecting a glucometer.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #108 and Resident #43) reviewed for Infection Control, the facility failed to offer flu and pneumococcal vaccinations.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, interview for 1 sampled resident (Resident #320) reviewed for COVID-19 infection, the facility failed to timely inform the resident, and family representative by 5:00 PM the next calendar day following the occurrence of five confirmed COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for 1 sampled resident (Resident #108) reviewed for Infection Control, the facility failed to offer the Covid-19 vaccine to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observation and staff interview for 1 of 3 residents at risk for pressure ulcer development for( Resident # 68), the facility failed to ensure that the resident's air mattress was check to ensure adequate and proper functioning of the mattress .
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility's Resident Personal Fund Account and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a security bond was obtained in an amount substantial enough to cover the total amount of the Resident Personal Fund Account in the event of financial loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility MDS submission report and staff interviews for 5 out 9 Resident Assessment for (Residents # 32, # 53, # 61, # 64 and # 111), the facility failed to ensure the residents assessments were submitted to the state agency within 14 days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to properly dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review and interviews for one of two residents (Resident #89) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure the resident's representative was notified timely when a new pressure ulcer was identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #92), the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation for a resident injury of unknown origin.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review and interviews for one of two residents (Resident #89) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure weekly skin audits were completed in accordance with physician's orders, and the facility failed to ensure a thorough nursing assessment was completed when a new pressure ulcer was identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for two of five residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications, (Resident #76 and Resident #95), the facility failed to ensure consistent target behavior monitoring for a resident with dementia who received antipsychotic medication, and the facility failed to ensure monitor targeted behaviors in accordance with physician's orders for a resident on an antipsychotic medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, and facility policy and procedures review for one sampled resident (Resident #68), the facility failed to place a resident with an active drug-resistant infection on appropriate isolation precautions.
24 fire safety citations on file: 5 on June 25, 2025, 14 on June 8, 2023, 5 on March 10, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 4, 2025 | Fine | $15,340 |
| November 7, 2023 | Fine | $8,824 |
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) | not reported | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | not reported | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | not reported | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | not reported | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | not reported | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 31.8% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 47.8% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS note on this home's staffing data: The accuracy of the staffing data for this measure could not be validated by CMS.
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 4.33 on weekdays and 3.90 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 12.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.03 in April to June 2025 to 4.21 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 | 4.21 | 0.77 | 4.33 | 3.90 | 12.0% | 0 of 90 | 112 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.69 | 0.70 | 3.89 | 3.19 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 103 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.44 | 0.67 | 3.65 | 2.91 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 101 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.03 | 0.83 | 4.29 | 3.38 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 98 |
| 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 | 23.4 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 24.7 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.4 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.6 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.5 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Civita Care Center at Salmon Brook's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.1% 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. 106 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. 122 eligible stays.
7.7% 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. 89 eligible stays.
56.1% 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. 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. 87 residents counted.
1.1% 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. 87 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. 43 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: SB OPCO LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mirlis Children Trust | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/22/2022 |
| Rose, Nathan | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/22/2022 | |
| Rose, Nathan | Corporate director | Individual | 12/22/2022 | |
| Mirlis, Eliyahu | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/22/2022 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Connecticut. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.