Home / Connecticut / Stratford
7003 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614 · Greater Bridgeport County · (203) 375-5894
60 certified beds, about 47 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare since 1996
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075412 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on October 25, 2024, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since November 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $14,069 in the last three years; the largest was $14,069, and the latest is dated August 27, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 5.54 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.30 of those hours.
43.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Ryders Health Management, an affiliated group of 7 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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation review, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for discharge planning, the facility failed to ensure the resident was discharged with home care services.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication errors, the facility failed to ensure Coumadin therapy to adequately maintain INR levels as ordered, failed to monitor the INR levels timely, and failed to act on the INR results timely in accordance with physician orders. The failures resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for two residents (Resident #1 and #2) reviewed for medication error, the facility failed to include anticoagulation therapy in the resident care plan timely for a resident on Coumadin.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three (Resident #2) reviewed for medication error, the facility failed to ensure Coumadin was administered to maintain the INR in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record and facility documentation, and interviews for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to ensure a resident identified at risk for elopement did not leave the facility without staff knowledge.
Inspectors wrote\ Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified timely of an increase in agitation.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for respiratory services, the facility failed to ensure that the medical provider was notified timely of a change in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation review, and staff interviews for one of three (Resident #1) reviewed for hospital transfer, the facility failed readmit a resident to the facility following hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #326) reviewed for infection control, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for a resident with a gastrostomy (feeding) tube and a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #374) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that a resident was treated with dignity when requesting wheel chair foot rests/pedals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, review of clinical records, and facility policy for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #525) reviewed for environment, the facility failed to provide a call bell that accommodated Resident #525's physical limitation needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, clinical record review, and facility policy for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #374) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed to implement a baseline care plan that met the immediate needs of a hemodynamically managed resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, a review of the clinical record, and facility policy for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #175) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), the facility failed to ensure Resident #175 was assisted with bed mobility according to the physician's orders and the resident's needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for the only sampled resident (Resident #326) reviewed for tube feeding, the facility failed to ensure medication orders indicated an appropriate route of administration for a resident who was to have nothing by mouth (NPO).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to implement bumper guards and floor mats per the physician's order for a resident on seizure precautions and for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #11) reviewed edema, facility failed to follow physicians order for the application of heel booties.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #374) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that appropriate assistance was provided with transfer of a resident, and for the only sampled resident (Resident #624) reviewed for smoking, the facility failed to ensure a smoking assessment was conducted as part of the initial admission assessment. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure appropriate disposal of used cigarette materials.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #11) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to administer oxygen per physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, review of clinical records, and facility policy for the only sampled resident (Resident #374) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed to identify and monitor Resident #374 Arteriovenous (AV) fistula (an artificial connection made between an artery and a vein for dialysis access).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #674) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure that a resident receiving an antipsychotic medication had an appropriate diagnosis and monitoring. Resident #674 was admitted to the facility in October 2024 with diagnoses that included anxiety/depression disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and breast cancer. The Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #674 was alert and oriented to person, place and time, communicated verbally, speech was clear and was able to understand and be understood when speaking. The Nursing admission Assessment further identified Resident #674's mood was pleasant with no unwanted behaviors. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record and interviews, for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #625) reviewed for food concerns, the facility failed to provide the requested alternative menu option.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, review of clinical records, and facility policy for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #624) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to offer a resident an influenza vaccine or document a refusal or proof of prior immunization of an influenza vaccine.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure wounds, the facility failed to ensure the responsible party was notified timely when a pressure wound worsened and the treatment plan changed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three resident (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure wounds, the facility failed to ensure a urine sample and weekly weights were obtained timely, in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and #2) reviewed for pressure wounds, the facility failed to ensure the record was complete and accurate to include weekly skin assessment results and weights.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of staff records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 4 of 6 sampled staff for NA # 2, NA # 3, LPN #1 and RN # 11) reviewed for staff competencies, the facility failed to provide annual staff competencies and evaluations per the facility assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that proper beard restraint during food handling and preparation and failed to ensure that bottle juice store in the emergency food supply was not expired and that refrigerator/freezer temperature were monitored and maintained.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility Infection Control program, observations, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that an accurate surveillance data tool was in place to track infections and the facility failed to ensure that freshly laundered resident clothing was kept in a clean and sanitary manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, observation, facility policy and interviews for 3 of 16 sampled residents (Residents #15, #31, #242) reviewed for advanced directives, the facility failed to ensure that the clinical record correctly reflected the advanced directive choice selected by the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for skin condition, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the state agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, facility documentation review and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #32) reviewed for skin condition, thoroughly investigate the origin of the resident's open purpura to the left upper arm.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review , observations facility policy and interviews for one resident ( Resident #744) reviewed for Leave Of Absence (LOA), the facility failed to document and communicate the resident's departure from the facility and one five residents (Resident #35) reviewed for safe medication administration, the facility failed to ensure safe administration of an extended release medication to meet professional standards . The findings indicated: 1. Resident #744's diagnoses included bipolar disorder and cervical disc disorder with radiculopathy high cervical region. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #286) reviewed for skin condition, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment for skin condition timely and the written physician order failed to specify the specific affected site.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy review and interviews for 3 medication storage rooms reviewed for temperature log maintenance, the facility failed to consistently maintain consistent temperature logs for 3 refrigerators reviewed and the facility failed to ensure that medication carts and medications were secured.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy review and interviews for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident # 193, #196, and #197) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to ensure that education regarding the Covid 19 vaccine was provided to the resident, and that documentation regarding refusal of the Covid 19 vaccine was documented in the resident's medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews and a review of the facility policy, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on a clinical record review, staff interviews, and a review of facility documentation for one of two residents reviewed for discharge (Resident # 182), the facility failed to ensure equipment needed to return to the community was obtained on the planned discharge date that resulted in a delayed discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the clinical record, staff interviews and a review of the facility policy for one of five Residents reviewed for psychotropic medications (Resident #10), the facility failed to properly monitor targeted behaviors.
11 fire safety citations on file: 4 on October 25, 2024, 5 on July 8, 2022, 2 on November 27, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 27, 2025 | Fine | $14,069 |
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) | 5.54 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.30 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.93 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.57 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.67 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.0% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 61.9% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.88 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 5.78 on weekdays and 4.93 on weekends, 15% 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 7.13 in April to June 2025 to 5.54 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 | 5.54 | 1.30 | 5.78 | 4.93 | 2.6% | 0 of 90 | 47 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 5.93 | 1.39 | 6.31 | 4.96 | 0.9% | 0 of 92 | 43 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 6.32 | 1.23 | 6.72 | 5.28 | 0.4% | 1 of 92 | 43 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 7.13 | 1.54 | 7.36 | 6.55 | 1.2% | 2 of 91 | 41 |
| 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 short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 33.5 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.2 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Lord Chamberlain Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Ce's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (64.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
64.8% 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. 477 eligible stays.
13.3% this home
Worse than 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. 448 eligible stays.
8.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Connecticut: 0 better, 2 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 242 eligible stays.
38.6% 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. 145 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. 236 residents counted.
2.4% 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. 236 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. 4 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: CHAMBERLAIN HEALTH CARE INC. CMS links this home to Ryders Health Management, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 1.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sbriglio, Martin | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 02/01/1995 |
| Sbriglio, Robert | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 02/01/1995 |
| Sbriglio, Martin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/1995 |
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.