Home / Connecticut / Southport
930 Mill Hill Terrace, Southport, CT 06890 · Greater Bridgeport County · (203) 259-7894
120 certified beds, about 109 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1977
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075200 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 31, 2025, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 57 health citations since September 2020, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $13,757 in the last three years; the largest was $13,757, and the latest is dated July 31, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.43 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.00 of those hours.
27.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Essential Healthcare, an affiliated group of 6 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 57 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #68 and 76) reviewed for dental services, for Resident #76, the facility failed to act on recommendations, over a period of 17 months, to have a broken tooth extracted, which resulted in a fistula, and for Resident #68, the facility failed to schedule a consultation with an oral surgeon in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 3 residents (Resident #10, 76 and 122) the facility failed to notify the physician and/or resident representative when required. For 1 of 5 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to notify the physician and resident representative of elevated blood sugars and change in condition. For 1 of 4 residents (Resident #76) reviewed for dental services, the facility failed to notify the physician when a dental provider observed moderate inflammation with a possible abscess of the resident's tooth. For 1 of 3 residents (Resident #122) reviewed for closed record, the facility failed to notify the physician when the resident left the facility AMA.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy, manufacturer guidelines and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the level of sanitizing solution in the dishwasher was tested and maintained at an adequate level according to manufacturer guidelines to ensure tableware was sanitized.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interview, the facility failed to ensure ongoing tracking and surveillance of antibiotic usage from 1/1/23 to 12/31/24 and failed to ensure staff education on antibiotic stewardship.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #12 and Resident 105) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to provide soap for personal care per the residents' preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 4 of 6 residents (Resident #43, 65, 99 and 116) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to protect Resident #43, 65, 99 and 115 from physical abuse by Resident #123, who had a history of resident-to-resident altercations, and injured Resident #99.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #7 and 79) reviewed for range of motion and/or behaviors, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for a resident with a contracture and a resident exhibiting disruptive behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 4 residents (Resident #7, 10, 17 and 100) the facility failed to provide care according to professional standards. For 1 of 2 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for range of motion, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards, for a resident with a contracture. For 1 of 5 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a history of hyperglycemia was assessed by a Registered Nurse following an elevated blood sugar. For 1 of 4 residents (Resident 17) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure a self-administration assessment was completed for safety prior to leaving medication at the bedside. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #77 and 82) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure weekly skin audits were completed and documented per the facility policy, and a specialty air mattress was set to the resident's weight per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for range of motion, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion for a resident with a hand contracture.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #6 and 125) reviewed for accidents, for Resident #6 the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to a resident who required aspiration precautions and supervision with intake and for Resident #125 the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and care planned interventions for a resident with a known history of substance abuse and a recent drug overdose to prevent a reoccurrence, and for 1 resident (Resident #10) reviewed for tube feeding and aspiration precautions, the facility failed to provide 1:1 feeding assistance and failed to ensure that mechanically altered diet orders were followed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #77) reviewed for indwelling catheter, the facility failed to ensure care according to professional standards for a resident who refused removal of an indwelling catheter over 5 months, that was ordered to be removed after 7 days.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #100) reviewed for non-pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed when required during the treatment of wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a nurse aide was provided at least 12 hours annual in-service education, and competency evaluations were completed at least annually.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 4 of 5 residents (Resident #3, 8, 21 and 79) reviewed for pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR), for Residents #3, 8 and 21 the facility failed to notify the State-designated authority when the residents were identified with a new mental health diagnosis and for Resident #79 who had a history of attempted self-harm and physically violent behavior directed as others, the facility failed to incorporate PASARR recommendations that included a crisis/safety plan in the resident's plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for dental, the facility failed to maintain a complete and readily accessible medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care, the facility failed to ensure staff followed up with a consulting physician office timely in accordance with hospital discharge directions.
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 the resident was free from physical mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for fifteen (15) of nineteen (19) residents (Resident #7, #8, #9, #11 , #12. #13,#14, #16, #18, #19, #20, #22, #23, #24 and #25) who have a history of substance abuse disorder and receive methadone treatment, the facility failed to ensure the residents had orders for Narcan (an opiate overdose reversal medication) administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 4 of 6 residents (Resident #3, #7, #8) reviewed for resident to resident altercations, the facility failed to create and implement interventions for residents after resident to resident abuse allegations.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for four (4) of six (6)residents, (Resident #3, #4, #7, #8), reviewed for resident to resident altercations, the facility failed to document social services visits for residents after resident to resident altercations.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy and interview the facility failed to ensure the resident council was provided responses, actions and rationale regarding their concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to ensure resident rooms and other living areas were clean and well maintained and for Resident #67, the facility failed to ensure the wheelchair arm rests were in good repair.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to ensure the walk-in refrigerator and freezer were maintained at the proper temperatures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation and interview the facility failed to maintain an adequate pest control program.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #66) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure resident was treated in a dignified manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #72 and 81) reviewed for care planning, the facility failed to ensure that the residents were invited to the care plan conference.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #66) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to ensure resident choices were accommodated when the resident requested to go to bed and staff did not assist the resident for 4 hours.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 residents (Resident #39 and 53) reviewed for personal funds, the facility failed to ensure the residents' had ready access to their personal funds managed by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 residents (Resident 53) reviewed for personal funds, the facility failed to ensure the residents' received quarterly statements from their personal funds account managed by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #600) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report an allegation of verbal abuse to the state agency in accordance with established timeframes and facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #600) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of verbal abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 3 of 4 residents (Resident #39, 72 and 75) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), the facility failed to ensure the resident was referred to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASARR evaluation and determination after a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder was identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #67) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the plan of care was updated after a fall.
Inspectors wrote2. Resident #67 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included diabetes and chronic pain. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #67 had intact cognition and required supervision for dressing, eating, toilet use, personal hygiene, and transfers. Additionally, Resident #67 does not ambulate and uses the wheelchair for locomotion in room and on unit. Resident #67 required supervision (oversight and cueing) for transfers, had 1 fall with injury and 1 fall with major injury of a bone fracture. The care plan dated 11/8/22 identified a history of falls with interventions that included add dycem on wheelchair, check wheelchair brakes and instruct resident on proper use. Pharmacy medication review. The care plan failed to address the falls on 7/31/22, 10/13/22 and 10/17/22. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #81) who requested to be seen by the eye doctor, the facility failed to ensure the resident was seen by the eye doctor.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 of 3 residents, (Resident #65), who was at risk to develop pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure the air mattress (weight based air mattress) was set accurately to the residents weight.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interview for 1 resident (Resident #43) reviewed for a specialized treatment and on a fluid restriction, the facility failed to ensure fluid intake was consistently monitored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record and facility policy for 1 unit, the facility failed to ensure the medication room was locked when unattended.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #39 and 81) reviewed for dental services, the facility failed to ensure a dental referral was made timely when dentures were identified as missing and failed to provide dental services to a resident who had complaints of dental pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #16) reviewed for hydration, the facility failed to provide fluids/drinks, consistent with the resident requests.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #10) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure the resident received the diet per physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 resident (Resident #16) reviewed for indwelling catheters, the facility failed to implement measures, including resident education, to ensure the drainage bag was secured off the floor to maintain infection control, and for 1 resident (Resident #64) reviewed for transmission-based precautions, the facility failed to ensure staff in a covid positive room wore the appropriate PPE.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the failed to inform residents and resident representatives of suspected or confirmed Covid 19 cases in the facility in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #30), who had been transferred to the hospital, the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of the hospital transfers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #81) reviewed for resident assessment, the facility failed to ensure the MDS accurately reflected the residents oral status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to ensure resident rooms and other living areas were well maintained.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #46 and #73) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure nutritional assessments and skin risk assessments were completed according to standards of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident's #24 and 66), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to implement the necessary interventions to ensure residents were free from smoking materials on their person, and were supervised when smoking.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to maintain 2 of 4 medication carts in a clean and sanitary manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy and interview, the facility failed to consistently maintain food temperature logs according to established criteria.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure foods were prepared under sanitary conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to maintain the dumpster and compactor area in a sanitary manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #22) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident was treated in a dignified manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 resident (Resident #22) reviewed for mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of neglect was reported to the State Agency per established requirements.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #73) reviewed for wounds, the facility failed to ensure a nutritional assessment was completed when the resident was identified with impaired skin integrity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #6) reviewed for Intravenous Therapy (IVT), the facility failed to ensure a documented assessment of the insertion site every shift, and failed to ensure the physician's order included the rate of infusion for a IV medication. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure policies and procedures were updated annually, and that training and competencies were completed annually.
10 fire safety citations on file: 8 on November 16, 2022, 2 on September 24, 2020.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 31, 2025 | Fine | $13,757 |
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) | 4.43 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.00 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.80 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.57 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.85 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 27.4% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 43.3% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.85 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 4.68 on weekdays and 3.80 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.99 in April to June 2025 to 4.43 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 | 4.43 | 1.00 | 4.68 | 3.80 | 1.0% | 0 of 90 | 109 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.16 | 0.93 | 4.43 | 3.47 | 1.1% | 0 of 92 | 113 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.07 | 0.90 | 4.28 | 3.53 | 1.5% | 0 of 92 | 114 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.99 | 0.90 | 4.21 | 3.44 | 1.7% | 0 of 91 | 114 |
| 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 | 13.0 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 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 | 1.6 | 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 | 11.9 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.7 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 35.8 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.6 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Southport Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
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 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. 18 eligible stays.
10.7% 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. 60 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. 49 eligible stays.
30.4% 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. 23 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 54 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. 54 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. 13 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: SOUTHPORT CENTER FOR NURSING & REHABILITATION LLC. CMS links this home to Essential Healthcare, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landa, Sari | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 6% | 11/01/2021 |
| Landa, Steven | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 38% | 11/01/2021 |
| Salamon, Menajem | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 44% | 11/01/2021 |
| Salamon, Mordejai | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 7% | 11/01/2021 |
| Mayer, Abraham | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 11/01/2022 | |
| Mayer, Berry | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 11/01/2022 | |
| Mayer, Moshe | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 11/01/2022 | |
| Mayer, Yossi | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 11/01/2022 | |
| Goldfarb, George | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Rayford, Danita | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/13/2025 | |
| Salamon, Menajem | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2016 | |
| Burg & Weingarten, Cpa, PC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2021 | |
| Zella Healthcare Consulting LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2021 | |
| Goldfarb, George | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/18/2025 | |
| Landa, Sari | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2025 | |
| Landa, Steven | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2025 | |
| Rayford, Danita | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/17/2025 | |
| Salamon, Menajem | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2025 | |
| Salamon, Mordejai | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2025 |
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.