Home / Connecticut / Mystic
475 High St., Mystic, CT 06355 · Southeastern Ct County · (860) 536-6070
100 certified beds, about 90 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1976
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075271 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 14, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 41 health citations since August 2021, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $25,259 in the last three years; the largest was $14,069, and the latest is dated March 19, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.35 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.56 of those hours.
58.8% 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews, for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1), who required the assistance of two staff for transfers, the facility failed to transfer the resident according to the plan of care resulting in a fall with major injury (left hip fracture) requiring surgical intervention.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of nine (9) sampled residents (Resident #2) who were admitted to the facility over the prior ninety (90) days, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation following an elopement incident involving a resident with known wandering and exit-seeking behaviors, when the facility did not interview all potential staff witnesses to determine how Resident #2 exited the building unattended through the rear exit door. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for three (3) of nine (9) sampled residents (Residents #2, #5, and #6) reviewed for elopement, he facility failed to conduct required wandering/elopement risk assessments upon admission and re-admission in accordance with facility policy and the admission process, resulting in delayed identification and implementation of elopement interventions, including Resident #2 who subsequently exited the facility unattended
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of nine (9) sampled residents (Resident #2) reviewed for elopement, the facility failed to implement existing elopement interventions for a severely cognitively impaired resident with known wandering and exit-seeking behaviors, resulting in Resident #2 exiting the facility unattended through a secured rear exit door without staff knowledge.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for four (4) of four (4) sampled residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, and #4), reviewed for a safe environment, the facility failed to ensure the environment was safe from accidents or hazards, when a food cart containing meal trays was stored outside of the locked kitchen door overnight and was accessible to cognitively impaired residents, who were prescribed modified diets and had wandering behaviors, which created a choking hazard. Additionally, one (1) of four (4) sampled residents (Resident #1) experienced a choking episode requiring the Heimlich maneuver after accessing food from the unattended tray chart. This failure resulted in the finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation/policies, and interviews for one (1) of four (4) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plan implementation, the facility failed to ensure staff followed the resident's person-centered care plan and Resident Care Card, which directed a pureed diet and monitoring during meals for aspiration, as evidenced by staff providing snacks without knowledge of a resident's prescribed diet and the failure to prevent access to food inconsistent with the prescribed diet.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation/policies, and interviews for one (1) of four (4) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for a safe environment, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff were aware of a resident's prescribed diet and failed to ensure staff reported observed unsafe eating behaviors, resulting in a cognitively impaired resident accessing food inconsistent with the prescribed diet and experiencing a choking episode.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 3 of 4 residents (Resident #3, Resident #11, and Resident #78) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to obtain admission weights, monthly weights and re-weights per the facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and facility policy for 2 of 2 medication storage carts and 2 of 2 medication rooms reviewed for medication storage, the facility failed to label open medications appropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, review of the clinical records and policy, for the only sampled resident (Resident #2) reviewed for urinary catheters, the facility failed to provide a privacy covering for a urinary collection bag, and for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #9 and Resident #73) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure dignified treatment was maintained.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for 1 of 2 Residents (Resident #56) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to notify a representative/emergency contact following a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interviews, and facility policy for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #3) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to revise the Resident Care Plan (RCP) to include interventions for triggers related to a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #41) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure a physician order for a subcutaneous injection was administered properly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, and policy for the only sampled resident (Resident #73) reviewed for activities, the facility failed to ensure activities were offered to a dependent resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, observation and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #98) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to follow physician orders to offload the resident's heels and failed to follow physician orders for the appropriate treatment of a wound.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interview, and review of facility policy, for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #74) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure that behavior monitoring was being performed with antipsychotic medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, observations, interviews and facility policy for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #11 and Resident #98) reviewed for Resident #11 reviewed for infection prevention practices, the facility failed to wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), and for Resident #98 reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to follow appropriate hand hygiene practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, interviews and facility policy during a review of the Facility Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Plan (QAPI), the facility failed to initiate a QAPI subsequent to identifying that staff had not been following physician orders or their policy for obtaining resident weights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from verbal mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect, the facility failed to ensure staff reported an allegation of abuse timely.
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 injuries of unknown origin, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from accidents resulting in sustaining several burn wounds from a hot beverage spill and the failure to implement an ordered intervention to prevent further injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for injuries of unknown origin, the facility failed to review and revise the plan of care timely following a newly discovered wound and failed to ensure the residents plan of care addressed frequent refusals of care.
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 injuries of unknown origin, the facility failed to ensure a full body skin assessment was performed after the discovery of an injury of unknown origin and failed to document every shift on an injury of unknown origin per physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for four (4) of six (6) residents (Residents #3, 4, 5 and 6) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure that the grievance forms were filled out and responded to per policy and failed to ensure the residents were provided support timely after allegations of abuse/mistreatment were made within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for four (4) of six (6) residents (Residents #3, 4, 5 and 6) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the State Agency was notified of allegations of abuse/mistreatment timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for five (5) of six (6) residents (Residents #2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect and failed to ensure a complete investigation was completed on Resident #1.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of six (6) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from abuse when a staff member was observed pushing the resident into the wheelchair.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of six (6) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure there was two (2) staff present for care of the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift on 1/25/25 per the resident's plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews, facility policy review, and interviews for two of six sampled residents (Resident #11 and #35) who received oxygen therapy, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was in place for a resident who required the use of continuous oxygen and failed to change oxygen tubing according to physician's orders and to prevent nosocomial infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility policy/procedures and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that controlled medications were reconciled (assurance of the medication count being correct) with each shift change.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #43) reviewed for dementia care, the facility failed to ensure that the care plan was reviewed by the interdisciplinary team following the quarterly MDS assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy and interviews one of four medication carts, and two of two medication storage rooms, the facility failed to ensure that expired medications were removed from the medication cart and the medication storage rooms and failed to ensure the cleanliness of the medication cart.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one off three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a resident from leaving the building unescorted.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #65) who was reviewed for decline in Activities of Daily Living (ADL), the facility failed to ensure the resident did not experience a decline in transfer status .
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for one of two residents (Resident #19) reviewed for smoking, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision during smoking and for one of four residents (Resident #4) reviewed for Accidents, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4 had supervision during meals per the hospitals recommendations and for one resident (Resident # 44) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a resident was transferred in a safe manner to prevent a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility policy and interviews for two of five residents (Resident #24 and Resident #70) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to change oxygen tubing per physician orders and for three out five residents who utilized respiratory equipment ( Residents # #4, 55 and 429), the facility failed to ensure the resident's oxygen tubing was dated and labeled .
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #5 and Resident #57) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to provide care per resident's preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility policy and interviews for eight of ten residents (Resident #12, #16, #17, #29, #32, #61, #64, and #72) reviewed for Medication Administration, the facility failed to ensure medications were given timely and for one resident (Resident # 12) reviewed for edema, the facility failed to ensure anti-embolism compression stockings were applied per the physician order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for one resident (Resident #51) reviewed for Medication Administration, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for one resident (Resident # 12) reviewed for edema, the facility failed to ensure an accurate medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and facility documentation facility, review of facility policy, the failed to appropriately sanitize a medical device and the facility failed to ensure that staff sign off on water management procedures per facility practice .
13 fire safety citations on file: 9 on November 8, 2023, 4 on August 2, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 19, 2026 | Fine | $11,190 |
| March 19, 2026 | 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) | 3.35 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.56 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.11 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.96 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.83 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 58.8% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 64.7% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
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 3.45 on weekdays and 3.11 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 11.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.57 in April to June 2025 to 3.35 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 | 3.35 | 0.56 | 3.45 | 3.11 | 11.1% | 0 of 90 | 90 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.45 | 0.60 | 3.52 | 3.27 | 20.1% | 0 of 92 | 86 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.77 | 0.56 | 3.85 | 3.57 | 36.2% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.57 | 0.61 | 3.69 | 3.28 | 28.1% | 0 of 91 | 83 |
| 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 | 39.5 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 40.5 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.6 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.6 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.4 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Mystic Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center, LLC's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (60.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.7% 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. 112 eligible stays.
9.9% 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. 117 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. 78 eligible stays.
43.1% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut58.9% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 51 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 69 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 69 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. 5 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: MYSTIC HEALTHCARE & REHABILITATION CENTER LLC. CMS links this home to Ryders Health Management, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 1.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kopchik, Kenneth | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 06/30/2006 |
| Sbriglio, Martin | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 06/30/2006 |
| Sbriglio, Martin | Corporate director | Individual | 06/30/2006 | |
| Sbriglio, Martin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/30/2006 |
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.