Home / Connecticut / Greenwich
1165 King Street, Greenwich, CT 06831 · Western Ct County · (203) 531-1335
217 certified beds, about 78 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1986
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075309 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 19, 2025, inspectors cited 19 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 31 health citations since November 2019, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $130,496 in the last three years; the largest was $122,478, and the latest is dated March 19, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.83 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.60 of those hours.
35.1% 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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, and interviews, the facility failed to follow the manufacturers' recommendations for replacing the Nephros water filters which were in place since [DATE], following a presumptive positive case of Legionella in a resident at the facility, and the facility failed to ensure that a positive Legionella water sample was reported to the State Agency in a timely manner. These failures resulted in the finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #33 and Resident #336) observed with medications at the bedside, the facility failed to ensure that medications were administered according to acceptable standards of practice and the facility failed to ensure that medication was not left at the resident's bedside for a resident who is without an order or assessment for self-administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the second-floor windows contained mechanisms to prevent them from fully opening, presenting a safety hazard to residents residing on the unit (dementia unit).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to complete license nurses and nurse aides education and competencies related to intravenous therapy (IV) therapy and the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses had intravenous therapy (IV) certificate.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for four of four medication carts, the facility failed to ensure shift to shift controlled drug counts were consistently completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for 5 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #14, 16, 24, 56, and 73) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to offer and provide influenza vaccine as required and for 4 of 5 residents (Resident #12, 26, 37, and 61) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to offer and provide pneumococcal vaccine as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 5 of 5 residents (Resident #2, 12, 19, 59, and 61) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to offer and provide Covid-19 immunizations as required.
Inspectors wrotedocumentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for two of two sampled residents (Residents #9 and #336) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to ensure the resident's choices were accommodated when the resident requested to go to bed, and staff did not assist the resident for four hours and failed to ensure menu choices were provided at mealtime.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedure, and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #335) reviewed for advanced directives, the facility failed to ensure consents were obtained regarding the resident's wishes regarding advance directives and decisions related to cardiopulmonary code status from the resident/responsible party.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedure and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #62) reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Record Review (PASRR), the facility failed to ensure that a Level 2 determination was completed when the 30-day approval stay expired.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #62) reviewed for unnecessary medication the facility failed to ensure that physician's orders were implemented and completed as prescribed by the physician and one of seven residents (Resident #335) reviewed for accidents the facility failed to ensure that medications were administered as prescribed by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy, and interviews for two of four sampled residents (Resident #36 and #286) reviewed for pressure ulcer/injury, the facility failed to ensure weekly skin audits were completed per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #24) reviewed for pressure ulcer/injury, the facility failed to ensure the bilateral hand rolls/rolled wash cloths were in place as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews, facility policy review, and interviews for one sampled residents (Resident #51) for enteral feeding, the facility failed to ensure enteral feeding were properly labeled with date and time and discarded when appropriate in accordance to the facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #68) reviewed for pain management, the facility failed to ensure pain medication was administered in accordance with the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #65) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure target behavior monitoring was completed, per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records, review of facility policy, and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #15 and #68) reviewed for pain management, the facility failed to ensure accurate administration documentation of pain medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Office of the Sate Long-Term Care Ombudsman was notified of resident transfers and discharges on a monthly basis.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Resident #66) reviewed for hospitalization and had multiple hospitalizations, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or resident representative were provided with written information regarding the bed hold policy.
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 wound care, the facility failed to ensure wound treatment recommendations were implemented.
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 wound treatments, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate to reflect wound treatments were administered.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, (Resident #2), the facility failed to ensure a resident who is completely dependent on staff for transfers, wheelchair mobility, bed mobility and Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) remained free from significant injuries of unknown origin including bilateral (both sides) femur (bone in upper thigh) fractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #19) reviewed for transfers, the facility failed have a system in place to assess residents per manufacturer guidelines for the use of the correct size hoyer pads for residents being transferred utilizing a mechanical lift.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 3 of 4 residents (Resident #21, Resident #34 and Resident #70) reviewed for resident to resident altercations, the facility failed to protect a resident (Resident #28) from abuse and failed to protect Resident #21 and Resident #70 from resident to resident altercations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #25) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure the specialty air mattress was maintained on the appropriate setting according to the residents weight and as per the physicians orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of an admission dietary assessment to calculate fluid needs and obtain an admission weight timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure laboratory blood work was completed timely as directed by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to notify the physician/Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) of abnormal lab values in a timely manner. Resident #85 was admitted to the facility from the hospital on 6/28/22 with diagnoses that included vascular dementia, Type II diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and recovering pneumonia secondary to Covid. The Hospital Intra-Agency Referral Report dated 6/28/22 noted Resident #85's lab values dated 6/28/22 identified a Sodium (NA) of 138 (135-146 is the normal range), Albumin 3.0 (3.6-5.1 is the normal range), and white blood cell count 11.4 (3.8-10.8 is the normal range). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview for the only resident in the survey sample reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review( PASARR) (Resident # 62), the facility failed to ensure a resident with a Level I pre-screen which later identified with a mental disorder was referred to the appropriate state-designated authority for a Level II PASARR evaluation and determination.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility documentation for the only resident in the survey sample reviewed for choices (Resident #51), the facility failed to ensure specialized test were conducted in accordance to the physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interview, review of facility documentation, and review of facility policies and procedures for one of three residents in the survey sample reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident # 307), the facility failed to ensure interventions were implemented to ensure offloading and positioning/repositioning were performed to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer.
11 fire safety citations on file: 5 on March 19, 2025, 5 on July 14, 2022, 1 on November 27, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 19, 2025 | Fine | $122,478 |
| November 15, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
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) | 3.83 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.60 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.44 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.43 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.79 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 35.1% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 56.0% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
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 3.98 on weekdays and 3.44 on weekends, 14% 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 3.85 in April to June 2025 to 3.83 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 | 3.83 | 0.60 | 3.98 | 3.44 | 3.8% | 0 of 90 | 78 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.04 | 0.69 | 4.26 | 3.48 | 5.5% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.06 | 0.81 | 4.30 | 3.46 | 5.4% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.85 | 0.80 | 4.04 | 3.37 | 8.4% | 0 of 91 | 84 |
| 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 | 30.4 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 35.2 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.3 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.5 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.9 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.5 | 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 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Greenwich Woods Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (69.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
69.1% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Connecticut: 75 better, 2 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 343 eligible stays.
13.1% 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. 328 eligible stays.
7.5% 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. 219 eligible stays.
72.8% 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. 103 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. 172 residents counted.
3.4% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut1.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 172 residents counted.
69.6% 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. 23 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: GREENWICH WOODS REHABILITATION LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenwich Woods Rehabilitation LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/18/2014 |
| Bernstein, Moshe | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2016 | |
| Blass, Mordechai | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2016 | |
| Greenwich Woods Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 68% | 01/05/2015 |
| Ik Greenwich LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 7% | 01/05/2015 |
| Lym Gw LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 9% | 01/05/2015 |
| Sjjj LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 16% | 01/05/2015 |
| Brown, Natalie | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/13/2021 |
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.