Home / Connecticut / Bristol
321 Stonecrest Drive, Bristol, CT 06010 · Naugatuck Vly County · (860) 583-1827
146 certified beds, about 121 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075350 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 2, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 58 health citations since December 2021, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $18,220 in the last three years; the largest was $9,110, and the latest is dated January 30, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.12 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
43.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Athena Healthcare Systems, an affiliated group of 19 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 58 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation/policy, and staff interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent an accident for a resident identified as cognitively impaired and at risk for falls. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was supervised during bedside urinal use when left out of staff line of sight behind a privacy curtain, resulting in a fall with injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #2) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure Resident Care Conferences (RCCs) were completed at least quarterly.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #2) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure a Fall Risk Evaluation was completed at least quarterly.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of three (3) residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure a nursing assessment was completed and documented in the clinical record at the time of the fall when the assessment was completed.1. Resident #1's diagnoses included Parkinson's disease (a movement disorder of the nervous system that worsens over time) with dyskinesia (involuntary, erratic and uncontrollable movements), dysarthria (speech disorder causing slurred, slow or quiet speech due to weakened muscles) and anarthria (severe form of dysarthria resulting in an inability to speak), generalized muscle weakness, lack of coordination, difficulty in walking and anxiety disorder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures, and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Residents #2 and #37) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure that a resident at risk for the development of a pressure injury and had an existing pressure injury had patient-centered preventative interventions and treatments that were implemented based on the resident's diagnoses and positioning risk factors contributing to the development and worsening of a pressure injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a control drug reconciliation process was in place.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for 1 of 5 sampled resident (Resident #114) reviewed for unnecessary medication, the facility failed to follow up on the consultant pharmacist's recommendations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided a substantial evening snack daily.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored or prepared in accordance with professional standards to ensure food service safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for three sampled residents (Residents #37, Resident #77 and Resident #117) reviewed for infection surveillance, failed to appropriately track and place a resident with an open wound on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), the facility failed to appropriately cohort residents with a known Multidrug Resistant Organism (MDRO) colonization per facility policy, the facility failed to review the infection prevention control program policies and procedures at least annually, the facility failed to ensure environmental rounds were conducted by the department heads on a quarterly basis, the facility failed to ensure that the infection control surveillance data collected monthly was analyzed for trends, and failed to follow the policy and procedural measures developed by the facility to prevent the [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records, review of facility policy, facility documentation, and interview for three of five sampled residents (Resident #5, Resident #8 and Resident #50) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to ensure that the COVID-19 booster vaccine was administered as requested by the resident/responsible party and offered on admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedure, and interviews for two of six sampled residents (Resident #9 and Resident #79) reviewed for advance directives, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was in place and consents were obtained regarding the resident's wishes regarding advance directives and decisions related to cardiopulmonary code status.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #114) reviewed for mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #114) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the allegation of abuse was reported to the state survey agency in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #45) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure medications were passed on time.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #2) who was incontinent, dependent on staff for care, and had a pressure injury, the facility failed to ensure the timely provision of care allowing the resident to go without incontinent care for over five hours.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #79) reviewed for foot care, the facility failed to ensure the resident received podiatry services for trimming of toenails.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #102) reviewed for pain, the facility failed to ensure the resident received pain medication timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedure, and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #5) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to ensure that the resident was offered and/assessed for pneumococcal and influenza immunization upon admission as per facility's policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident #1's clinical records (including Minimum Data Set assessments, care plan, admission documentation, and nursing notes), facility policies, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident, who required two-person assistance for transfers as per the care card, was transferred per protocol on 1/16/2026. As a result, Resident #1 sustained an acute comminuted fracture of the left distal femoral shaft above the knee, confirmed by X-ray and hospital records. This constitutes a preventable accident, reflecting a breakdown in supervision and adherence to established protocols.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who required staff assistance with transfers and ambulating, the facility failed to review and revise the mobility care plan when there was a change with the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who had sustained an injury, the facility failed to administer pain medication following observations of pain to keep the resident comfortable.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) nurse aides, the facility failed to complete an annual performance evaluation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for palliative care, the facility failed to administer medications as prescribed by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for palliative care, the facility failed to ensure that clinical record documentation was accurate by documenting medications that were not actually given.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan to include known smoking incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure known resident smoking incidents were investigated timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and policies, and interviews for two (2) sampled residents (Resident #1 and #2) who were reviewed for the misappropriation of personal property, the facility failed to ensure the residents' controlled medications and the controlled disposition sheets were not removed from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to treat the resident in a dignified and respectful manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #2), reviewed for misappropriation of funds, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from misappropriation from a facility staff member.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for impaired skin integrity, the facility failed to document completed weekly skin evaluation forms in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility policies and procedures, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #6) who were reviewed for an allegation of abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from verbal and physical abuse when a staff member pushed resident into a seated position with force and used profanity directed towards the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Residents #1 and #10) who were reviewed for an allegation of misappropriation of the resident's medication, the facility failed to ensure Residents #1's medications were not consumed by a licensed nurse and Resident #10's narcotic medication was not missing and unaccounted for.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Residents #1 and #10) who were reviewed for allegations of misappropriation of medications the facility failed to report the allegations timely and did not remove the involved staff member from the facility immediately.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #9) who were reviewed for the administration of medication, the facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse followed standards of practice when administering insulin.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for dignified treatment, (Resident 1) , the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for transfer status, (Resident #1) , the facility failed to ensure a resident was transferred in care plan and physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility policy and interviews for five of twenty-four sampled residents (Residents #33, #51, #69, 78, &107) reviewed for Advanced Directives, the facility failed to ensure the physician's orders and the signed advanced directive forms were congruent.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Resident #11) observed during the medication administration, the facility failed to ensure that the consultant pharmacist identified a discrepancy in a written physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, review of facility policy and interviews for sample one of two sampled residents (Resident #24) who required total assistance with activities of daily living, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's nails were trimmed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #113) with a non-pressure related wound, the facility failed to ensure the wound was assessed by a registered nurse upon initial observation, and failed to ensure the wound was assessed on a weekly basis.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #27) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure that the initial and weekly assessments of the wound were completed by a registered nurse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of two residents (Resident # 120) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to ensure a written summary of the baseline care plan was discussed and provided to the resident and/or representative.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility policy, and interviews for three of five sampled residents (Residents #9, #64, and #74) reviewed for unnecessary medication, the facility failed to ensure laboratory and/diagnostic medical records were readily accessible and complete in the resident's physical chart and/or electronic medical record system.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #23) reviewed for hospice care, the facility failed to ensure that the clinical record contained hospice documentation
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #58) reviewed for a resident-to-resident interaction, the facility failed to ensure the resident's dignity was maintained.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation review, review of facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #58) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed ensure timely notification of an allegation of inappropriate behavior to the State Survey Agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation review of facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #58) reviewed for an allegation of resident-to-resident mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure a timely investigation was initiated.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 the State Agency was notified timely of an allegation of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 the clinical record was complete and accurate to include an assessment after reported pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #128) reviewed for catheter use, the facility failed to ensure the resident did not develop a pressure area related to the catheter use.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of five residents (Resident #40) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure supervision was provided for a dependent resident to prevent a fall with injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation review and interviews for kitchen review, the facility failed to ensure bread was labeled with an expiration date.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #191 and #588) who were reviewed for a change in condition, the facility failed to notify a physician at the time the residents experienced a decline in their health status.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #190) who was discharged home, the facility failed ensure the Inter-Agency Patient Referral Form had the correct demographic information and an order for oxygen therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, and interviews, for one sample resident (Resident #22) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed a comprehensive care plan to include resident refusals to attend dialysis appointments.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #588) who was a new admission, the facility failed to transcribe onto the Medication Administration Record the correct frequency a medication was to be administered .
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #588) who was a new admission, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order when the resident required oxygen therapy.
14 fire safety citations on file: 10 on March 2, 2026, 3 on April 26, 2024, 1 on December 9, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 30, 2026 | Fine | $9,110 |
| January 30, 2026 | Fine | $9,110 |
| July 3, 2024 | Payment Denial | 6 days from October 3, 2024 |
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) | 3.12 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.87 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.71 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.99 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.3% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 64.7% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 3 |
CMS expects 3.52 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 3.22 on weekdays and 2.87 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.97 in April to June 2025 to 3.12 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 | 3.12 | 0.41 | 3.22 | 2.87 | 3.8% | 0 of 90 | 121 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.22 | 0.42 | 3.34 | 2.92 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 109 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.65 | 0.52 | 3.79 | 3.30 | 1.0% | 0 of 92 | 90 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.97 | 0.55 | 4.12 | 3.59 | 0.6% | 0 of 91 | 87 |
| 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 | 20.4 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.8 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.1 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.7 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.5 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.9 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Civita Care Sheriden Woods's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.0% 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. 79 eligible stays.
10.8% 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. 100 eligible stays.
6.4% 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. 53 eligible stays.
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: 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. 12 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: 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. 19 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: 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. 19 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. 2 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: SHERIDEN WOODS HEALTH CARE CENTER INC. CMS links this home to Athena Healthcare Systems, a group of 19 nursing homes averaging 1.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colaci, Joseph | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 9% | 10/30/1985 |
| Santilli, Lawrence | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 21% | 10/01/2017 |
| Mosier, Michael | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2017 | |
| Mosier, Michael | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2007 | |
| Santilli, Lawrence | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Athena Health Care Associates, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/30/1985 |
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.