Home / Connecticut / Manchester
385 W Center St., Manchester, CT 06040 · Capitol County · (860) 646-0129
126 certified beds, about 119 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075333 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 16, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 25 health citations since March 2022, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $12,735 in the last three years; the largest was $12,735, and the latest is dated March 16, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.84 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
42.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Atlas Healthcare, an affiliated group of 30 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 25 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for allegations of neglect, the facility failed to ensure appropriate monitoring and implementation of interventions to prevent skin breakdown for a dependent resident who was identified as having a high risk for developing pressure sores (wound), including failure to ensure offloading boots were properly managed and failure to assess the skin under the boots every shift, resulting in the development of an avoidable pressure wound to the left dorsal foot that was not identified timely and progressed to a full thickness wound requiring ongoing treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation/policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for allegations of neglect, the facility failed to notify a provider following a dental exam performed at the facility, which identified devastated dentition requiring further intervention, after the follow up visits were scheduled but not conducted or rescheduled at the facility, for six (6) consecutive visits over a period of 6 months.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the facility had a process for reconciliation of controlled medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews during a review of the Infection Control Program, the facility failed to ensure that the laundry room had a cleaning schedule to protect linens from dust and soil, the facility failed to ensure infection surveillance data collection reports and analysis of infection trends within the facility were completed monthly, the facility failed to ensure the MDRO tracking sheet accurately reflects residents MDRO infection status, and the facility failed to ensure outbreaks were tracked and exposure investigations completed per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to have a consistent designated Infection Preventionist (IP) with the required specialized training in infection control, that was responsible for the facility's Infection Control Program in 2024, 2025 and 2026.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review and interviews for one of three sample residents (Resident #119) reviewed for resident-to-resident sexual abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from inappropriate sexual conduct.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review and interviews for one of three sample residents (Resident #119) reviewed for sexual abuse, the facility failed to report allegation of sexually inappropriate behavior between two residents to the state survey agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review and interviews for one of three sample residents (Resident #119) reviewed for sexual abuse, the facility failed to conduct a timely and comprehensive investigation involving an inappropriate sexual behavior between two residents and failed to put measures in place to prevent the recurrence of the inappropriate behavior with Resident #119 and other residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records, review of facility policy review, and staff interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #20 and #115) reviewed for facility acquired pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure that Braden Scale assessments were completed in accordance with the facility's policy, documentation of turning and repositioning, failed to ensure that a comprehensive pressure ulcer assessment was completed once the pressure ulcer was identified and failed to ensure timely treatment orders were put in place.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from active use.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #27) reviewed for dental, the facility failed to ensure dental services were provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, for one of three residents (Resident #94) reviewed during a review of the antibiotic stewardship program, the facility failed to ensure that an antibiotic time out was completed for a resident on an antibiotic and the facility failed to provide documentation of antibiotic usage, patterns and resistant trends.
Inspectors wroteNMBased on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #36) reviewed for pressure injury, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive MDS assessment was accurately coded to reflect the resident was admitted with pressure injuries and for one of four sampled residents (Resident #61) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), the facility failed to ensure the MDS accurately reflected the resident's status.
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 neurological monitoring was completed timely after an unwitnessed fall and the facility failed to ensure the facility policy directed staff when to conduct neurological monitoring after an unwitnessed fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #2) who were reviewed for wound care, the facility failed to moisten the adhered dressing prior to removing the dressing to ensure the Stravix skin graft that was sutured to the right Achilles Stage 4 pressure ulcer was not removed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #2) who required wound care, after Resident #2 developed a breakdown in skin integrity, the facility failed to inform the resident's representative of the worsening progression, for eight (8) days, to discuss additional treatment options to prevent a further decline of the skin.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #48) reviewed for advanced directives, the facility failed to ensure advanced directive choices were reviewed with the resident/resident representative to ensure their choices were honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #80) reviewed for Activities of daily living, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain or improve mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 6 certified nurse aide personnel files (NA #3 and NA #4), the facility failed to complete performance reviews, annually. Review of NA #4's personnel filed identified that she was hired on 6/13/1995 and failed to identify documentation that an annual performance review was completed for the year of 2023. NA #4's personnel file further identified her last documented employee performance review was dated 6/13/22. Review of NA #3's personnel filed identified that she was hired on 6/14/22 and failed to identify documentation that an annual performance review was completed for the year of 2023. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #48) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure behavior monitoring was conducted for a resident on antipsychotic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment as a call bell system malfunction resulted in call bells ringing in 2 of 3 units throughout the facility for several days.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #118) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure care was provided in accordance with the plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #80 ) reviewed for Activities of daily living, the facility failed to follow the physician order for ambulation, and for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #37 and 47) reviewed for mobility, the facility failed to ensure that a low air loss mattress was set to resident's weight per physician's order and manufacturer recommendations; and for 1 of 25 residents (Resident #79) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure blood pressures were monitored per the physician's order with administration of a prescribed medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of four (4) residents, (Resident # 1), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that interventions were in the plan of care to address non-compliant behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #23) observed during dining, the facility failed to ensure that a Nothing by Mouth (NPO) resident was treated in a dignified manner during dining.
6 fire safety citations on file: 3 on March 16, 2026, 3 on March 24, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 16, 2026 | Fine | $12,735 |
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) | 3.84 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.37 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.11 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.14 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.4% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 52.9% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.90 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 4.03 on weekdays and 3.37 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 6.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.75 in April to June 2025 to 3.84 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 | 3.84 | 0.59 | 4.03 | 3.37 | 6.8% | 0 of 90 | 119 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.84 | 0.50 | 3.99 | 3.45 | 6.8% | 0 of 92 | 118 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.86 | 0.45 | 3.99 | 3.53 | 7.0% | 0 of 92 | 117 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.75 | 0.44 | 3.89 | 3.40 | 6.5% | 0 of 91 | 122 |
| 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 | 18.0 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 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 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.5 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.9 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.4 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Manchester Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (60.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.0% 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. 322 eligible stays.
11.4% 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. 297 eligible stays.
7.1% 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. 206 eligible stays.
53.5% 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. 172 residents counted.
0.4% 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. 239 residents counted.
2.7% 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. 239 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. 17 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: MANCHESTER MANOR SNF OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Atlas Healthcare, a group of 30 nursing homes averaging 3.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ct-3 Operations Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 07/27/2022 |
| Jmh Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/27/2022 | |
| Jmh Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/27/2022 | |
| Malt Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/27/2022 | |
| Mls Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/27/2022 | |
| Mls Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/27/2022 | |
| Sgs 2010 Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/27/2022 | |
| Sgs Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/27/2022 | |
| Sgs Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/27/2022 | |
| Tyh 2017 Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 07/27/2022 | |
| Goldberger, Shlomo | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/27/2022 | |
| Bak, Pinchos | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/27/2022 |
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.