Home / Connecticut / Meriden
33 Roy St., Meriden, CT 06450 · Lower Ct River Vly County · (203) 237-8457
158 certified beds, about 148 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075337 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 20, 2024, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 34 health citations since October 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $24,150 in the last three years; the largest was $24,150, and the latest is dated October 31, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.11 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.28 of those hours.
35.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Icare Health Network, an affiliated group of 12 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for one (1) of two (2) sampled residents (Resident #1) who had a family member as the Responsible Party and the Responsible Party managed Resident #1's finances, the facility failed to ensure an applied income payment (payment for services not covered by insurance) to the facility from Resident #1 dated 3/9/26 was not deposited into a staff member's personal banking account.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interviews, and facility documentation/policies for two (2) of six (6) residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interviews, and review of facility documentation and policies for two (2) of six (6) residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation after a resident-to-resident abuse incident.
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 in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for an allegation of abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from a physical altercation with a staff member that led to the resident falling.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to notified the Administrator and/or designee of a physical altercation between a staff member and the resident at the time of the incident and therefore the incident was not reported to the State Agency for five (5) days.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who had sustained a fall, the facility failed to ensure vital signs were obtained and recorded accurately.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse/neglect was reported to the State Agency (SA).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of abuse/neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and facility documentation, the facility failed to follow infection prevention and control guidelines by failing to ensure resident room sink faucet filters were changed once expired.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for one (1) of eight (8) sampled residents (Resident #5) who were reviewed for misappropriation of personal property, the facility failed to ensure a controlled medication, Methadone, was properly stored to prevent the removal of six (6) bottles from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for one (1) of eight (8) sampled residents (Resident #5) who received Methadone (a controlled substance used to treat opioid addiction), the facility failed to ensure Resident #5's Methadone was stored per the facility policy to prevent the loss of the Methadone resulting in an omission of a dose and ensure the resident did not experience withdrawal symptoms.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for one (1) of eight (8) sampled residents (Resident #5) who received a controlled medication, the facility failed to ensure a supply of Methadone (a controlled substance used to treat opioid addiction) was counted upon arrival to the facility and during the change of shift, and was stored in a secured cabinet per the facility's policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for seven (7) of eight (8) sampled residents (Residents #5, #6, #7, #8, #10, #11, and #12) who were reviewed for accurate documentation, the facility failed to ensure the Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected documentation that the residents received the medication when administered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and review of facility policy during a tour of the Dietary Department, the facility failed to ensure food was stored under clean conditions, failed to ensure facility prepared foods were discarded within 72 hours, and failed to ensure food items that had been removed from the original outer container had expiration or opened dates.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #107) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to follow pharmacy recommendations.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #112) reviewed for antibiotic use, the facility failed to monitor a resident on long term antibiotics per the facility antibiotic stewardship policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interview for 1 of 4 sampled residents, (Resident #12) reviewed for positioning and mobility, the facility failed to implement siderail pads according to the care plan and for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident #121) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to implement a care plan intervention related to falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #12) reviewed for skin conditions, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for the application of bilateral foot boots and for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident #18) reviewed for positioning, the facility failed to accurately transcribe a provider's order for positioning. Additionally, for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #35, Resident #118 and Resident #129) reviewed for Methadone therapy, the facility failed to ensure Methadone was available for administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and staff interviews for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #121) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to notify a resident's responsible party after multiple falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility documentation review for two of three residents (Resident #2, Resident #3) review for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the residents were free from abuse. Residents #2 and #3 had a physical altercation, resulting in both residents with injuries to their faces, and were transferred to the hospital for treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility documentation for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were transcribed accurately to ensure medication was administered in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, interviews, and facility policy review for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #28) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical injury by another resident (Resident #133).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for one resident (Resident # 70) reviewed for specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure medications were appropriate.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two of six resident's reviewed for accidents, (Resident #499 and Resident # 500), the facility failed to ensure that a resident was seated in the correct wheelchair and that staff was educated on how to maneuver a wheelchair on an even surface and failed to ensure that intervention were in place to supervise a resident who exhibited restless behaviors to prevent falls with major injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner and in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, and interviews, for one of three resident's reviewed for a change in condition, (Resident #500), the facility failed ensure a Power Of Attorney (POA) for health care was notified of a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, for one of three resident's reviewed for a change in condition, (Resident #500), the facility failed to complete an assessment timely after a new onset of pain was identified, and failed to ensure a timely transport to the Emergency Department (ED) once a fracture was identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interview for one sampled resident reviewed for urinary catheter, (Resident #47), the facility failed to ensure the urinary catheter was changed as direct by the physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, and interviews, for one of three resident's reviewed for behaviors, (Resident #500), the facility failed to ensure that all interventions were attempted to address behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one of five residents (Resident # 85) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the consultant pharmacist failed to identify and report irregularities related to orthostatic blood pressure monitoring for a resident receiving antipsychotic medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, review of the clinical record and review of facility documentation for one of five residents (Resident # 85) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to monitor orthostatic blood pressures for a resident receiving antipsychotic medications according to facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for four of five residents (Resident # 42, Resident #56, Resident #84 and Resident #107) reviewed for PASRR, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of an MDS assessment.
11 fire safety citations on file: 5 on December 20, 2024, 5 on July 12, 2022, 1 on October 31, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 31, 2024 | Fine | $24,150 |
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) | 3.11 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.28 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.71 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.97 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.86 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 35.8% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 71.4% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.28 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 3.27 on weekdays and 2.71 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 9.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.04 in April to June 2025 to 3.11 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 | 3.11 | 0.28 | 3.27 | 2.71 | 9.5% | 0 of 90 | 148 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.18 | 0.25 | 3.34 | 2.77 | 8.3% | 0 of 92 | 150 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.97 | 0.23 | 3.09 | 2.67 | 6.8% | 0 of 92 | 152 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.04 | 0.25 | 3.18 | 2.67 | 7.1% | 0 of 91 | 152 |
| 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 | 17.6 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 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 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.7 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.6 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Silver Springs Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.2% 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. 25 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. 30 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 13 eligible stays.
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: 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. 7 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: 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. 12 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: 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. 12 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. 2 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: MERIDEN CARE CENTER, LLC. CMS links this home to Icare Health Network, a group of 12 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apex Advisors | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 48% | 12/01/2003 |
| Executive Advisors, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 48% | 12/01/2003 |
| Wright, Christopher | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 5% | 12/01/2003 |
| Hackling, Raymond | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/01/2015 | |
| Wright, Christopher | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2003 | |
| I Care Management | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2003 |
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.