Home / Connecticut / Greenwich
70 Parsonage Rd, Greenwich, CT 06830 · Western Ct County · (203) 618-4200
202 certified beds, about 158 residents a day · Government - City · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075117 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 6, 2024, inspectors cited 18 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 58 health citations since August 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $4,516 in the last three years; the largest was $4,516, and the latest is dated January 30, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.38 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.94 of those hours.
7.4% 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 58 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and staff interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #30) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who required physical assistance with toileting received the necessary hands on supervision/support to prevent a fall. This failure resulted in the resident falling and sustaining an injury that required staples.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review, facility documentation review, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to develop new fall interventions timely following a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation review and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to provide supervision for a resident with dementia and known risk of falls to prevent a fall with injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation review, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed ensure staff did not move a resident after a fall resulting in resident complaint of pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation, facility policy review, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to include a resident's transfer status.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation review, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a resident diagnosed with diabetes had routine monitoring of hemoglobin A1C blood glucose levels.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the resident was transferred in accordance with facility policy during a mechanical lift resulting in a resident fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for two of three sampled residents (Resident #1 and #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #2 were free from mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility record review for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the facility policy directed abuse education for student nurse aides prior to placement on a resident unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for three sampled residents (Resident #1, 2 and 3) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure allegations of mistreatment were reported timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation and staff interviews for staff education review, the facility failed to ensure students providing resident care were provided abuse education 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 accidents, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate to include a fall intervention after the resident had a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews, facility documentation review, and interviews for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #11, #86, #117 and #137) reviewed for infection control, the facility failed to ensure that infection control practices related to glucometer cleaning and disinfection in between resident and the facility failed to ensure personal protective equipment (PPE) carts were available outside every resident room who required the use of PPE, evidence of infection surveillance, evidence of annual review of the Intravenous and Infection Control Policy books, evidence facility water management plan and for 1 of 3 residents evaluated for pressure ulcers (Resident #24), the facility failed to ensure staff used appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when performing dressing changes and for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #25) reviewed for infection control, the [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 3 of 40 sampled residents (Resident #25, Resident #227 and Resident #228) reviewed for advanced directives, the facility failed ensure a resident's code status was complete and accurate for a newly admitted /readmitted resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations and interviews for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory infection (Residents #91 and #276) the facility failed to ensure the care plan was revised to reflect the resident status requiring transmission-based precautions and 1 of 1 resident (#117) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living, the facility failed to ensure the residents care plan reflected the bathing preference of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and review of facility documentation, the facility failed to ensure staff received ongoing education for Intravenous (IV) Therapy and perform competency evaluations to ensure staff remained competent to provide IV therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on the tour of the kitchen, observations and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure dinner and breakfast were served within the 14-hour gap.
Inspectors wroteBased on the tour of the kitchen, observations, facility documentation, review of policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the dietary department consistently labeled food to reflect their age or shelf life and failed to ensure the nourishment fridge and snacks cabinets on each unit were adequately stocked.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility Infection Control program, review of facility document, facility policy and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure an Antibiotic Stewardship Program was in place and available for review.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident # 226) reviewed for change in condition, the facility failed ensure the physician was notified of a resident change in condition in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1of 3 sampled residents (Resident #35) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to follow up with a resident reported concerns in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview for one of three residents (Resident #227) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure an alleged staff member was removed from the schedule after an allegation of mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #176) reviewed for discharge planning, the facility failed to ensure Durable Medical Equipment (DME) was ordered timely for a planned discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #109) reviewed for change in condition, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change Status Assessment (SCSA) MDS assessment when the resident was admitted to hospice.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interviews for 1 of 3 residents ( Resident #117) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living, the facility failed to ensure a resident received a shower on per plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record and facility policy and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #426) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to follow physicians order regarding pressure reliving device.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, review of facility documentation, review of policy and staff interviews for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents for( Resident # 22), the facility failed to implement intervention to prevent future falls and for (Resident #47), the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision of a resident who left a nursing unit unauthorized .
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #35) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to confirm weight loss according to policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview for one of three residents (Resident #227) reviewed for abuse the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate to include an RN assessment after an allegation of mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of Resident Rights and interviews, the facility failed to ensure state inspection results were readily accessible to residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for a fall, a facility staff member failed to report a fall to the licensed staff when the resident had reported the unwitnessed fall so an assessment could be conducted to determine if the resident had sustained an injury or struck their head.
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 a change in condition, the facility failed to ensure a change in condition it was reported timely to the physician timely and failed to report a change in condition to a responsible party.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3)residents, (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from physical abuse.
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 abuse, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the state agency within the required time frame.
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 abuse, the facility failed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation for an allegation of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for wound care, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a declining wound was seen at a wound center as recommended by the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) and the clinical record failed to reflect documentation the attending physician or APRN assessed the wound.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to ensure the environment was maintained in a homelike manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 5 residents (Resident #54, 122, 162, 272, and 274) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to obtain and document consent or declination and administer the Prevnar 13 and Pneumococcal 23 vaccinations.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Residents #97) who were reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident was treated in a manner that maintained the resident's dignity and respect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #162) reviewed for notification of change, the facility failed to ensure the physician and family were notified of a weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #128) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure Resident #128 was free from abuse by Resident #39.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Residents #97) who were reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to report the results of the investigation within five (5) working days to the state agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 (Resident #67) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), the facility failed to ensure recommendations for a re-evaluation were requested in accordance with established timeframes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 Residents (Resident #271) reviewed for dialysis, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan for dialysis management.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for 1of 4 residents (Residents #97) who were reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to review and revise the plan of care to address an incident between a staff member and the resident, and for 2 residents (Resident #39 and 128) reviewed for falls and resident to resident abuse, the facility failed revise the care plan following repeated falls and failed to ensure the care plan was revised for a resident who was the victim of physical abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 residents (Resident # 54 and #122) reviewed for Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the facility failed to ensure facility staff had immediately documented discussions with the resident or resident representative, the resident's wishes with regard to CPR or DNR, upon admission including, as appropriate, a resident's wish to refuse CPR.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #97) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure recommendations were responded to for a resident requiring psychiatric services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #162) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to monitor weights and implement dietary recommendations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #106), reviewed for dialysis the facility failed to monitor the dialysis access site (Arterio-Venous (AV) fistula) for a thrill/bruit and failed to ensure that the resident was assess for signs and symptoms of infection and bleeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy, and interviews, for 4 of 6 medication carts, the facility failed to maintain medication carts in a clean and sanitary manner and failed to ensure a medication cart was secured and in a designated area.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and failed to ensure food items were covered and dated according to policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policies and procedures, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #83) reviewed for mistreatment, the facility failed to treat the resident in a dignified manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of two sampled residents reviewed for choices (Resident #55), the facility failed to ensure Resident #55's preference related to getting out of bed was followed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical records reviewed, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #145) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to keep the resident free from abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policies and procedures, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #41) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of a bruise of unknown origin in accordance to facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one sampled residents reviewed for special needs during dining (Resident #83), the facility failed to ensure supervision during a meal.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident reviewed for resident assessment (Resident #2), the facility failed to ensure an Minimum Data Set (MDS) was transmitted as required per Federal regulations.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview for the one of one sampled resident reviewed for bowel and bladder function (Resident #140) and for one of five sampled residents (Resident #172) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), the facility failed to correctly code the MDS.
22 fire safety citations on file: 9 on August 6, 2024, 10 on March 9, 2022, 3 on August 9, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 30, 2024 | Fine | $4,516 |
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) | 4.38 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.94 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.99 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.60 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.84 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 7.4% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 8.8% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.64 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 4.54 on weekdays and 3.99 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.16 in April to June 2025 to 4.38 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 | 4.38 | 0.94 | 4.54 | 3.99 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 158 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.26 | 0.89 | 4.40 | 3.91 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 165 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.20 | 0.89 | 4.34 | 3.84 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 169 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.16 | 0.87 | 4.30 | 3.82 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 166 |
| 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 | 25.1 | 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 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.5 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.7 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 30.3 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.9 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Nathaniel Witherell, the's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (29.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
29.4% this home
Worse 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. 196 eligible stays.
11.0% 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. 197 eligible stays.
7.3% 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. 291 eligible stays.
58.6% 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. 203 residents counted.
1.1% 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. 286 residents counted.
5.8% 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. 286 residents counted.
88.0% 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. 25 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: TOWN OF GREENWICH.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Town of Greenwich | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/1966 | |
| Anantharaj, John | Corporate director | Individual | 02/23/2026 | |
| Diteodoro, Jack | Corporate director | Individual | 12/18/2023 | |
| Kaplan, Richard | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2016 | |
| Kelly, Peter | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Markowitz, Brad | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Mastronardi, John | Corporate director | Individual | 04/27/2020 | |
| Mc Sherry-Martino, Margaret | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Packard, Pamela | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Patel, Nirmal | Corporate director | Individual | 10/23/2018 | |
| Paulmeno, Stephanie | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Radulovacki, Bradford | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Tabner, Kate | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2025 | |
| Vaccaro, Justine | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Vasquez, Sasha | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/27/2020 | |
| Diteodoro, Jack | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/18/2023 | |
| Mastronardi, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/27/2020 | |
| Vasquez, Sasha | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/27/2022 | |
| Town of Greenwich | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/03/2025 | |
| Diteodoro, Jack | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/20/2026 | |
| Mastronardi, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/27/2020 | |
| Vaccaro, Justine | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Vasquez, Sasha | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/27/2020 |
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.