Home / Connecticut / Bristol
23 Fair Street, Bristol, CT 06010 · Naugatuck Vly County · (860) 589-2923
120 certified beds, about 75 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1971
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075198 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 12, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 38 health citations since July 2021, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $22,411 in the last three years; the largest was $14,393, and the latest is dated March 7, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.08 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.94 of those hours.
45.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Atlas Healthcare, an affiliated group of 30 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 38 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation and policy, and staff interviews for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #2) reviewed for controlled substances, the facility failed to ensure controlled substances were secured under double lock immediately upon receipt in accordance with facility policy. Specifically, controlled substances delivered by the pharmacy were left unsecured on top of a medication cart and were not verified and secured at the time of receipt, resulting in a discrepancy in which one (1) blister pack of Oxycodone was unaccounted for.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #124) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure necessary care and services were immediately sought and provided to ensure Resident # 124 safety and prevent a fall with major injury, when Resident # 124 exhibited a change in condition, subsequently fell out of bed and sustained an eyelid laceration and fracture to the face and failed to ensure the area designated for smoking was free from accident hazards.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation and interviews for 1 of 2 residents ( Resident #26) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to ensure a resident urinary collecting device was handled in a dignified manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, review of facility documents and staff interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #62) reviewed for the Environment, the facility failed to ensure the floor in the resident's room was kept clean and sanitary.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #1) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), failed to ensure the accurate coding of an MDS assessment for a resident identified with a serious mental illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, review of policy and interviews for 2 of 4 residents ( Resident #224 and #274) reviewed for Respiratory Care, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan to meet the essential needs of the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of policy and staff interviews for 1 of 1 resident ( Resident # 2) reviewed for elopement, the facility failed to conduct elopement evaluations per facility policy and for 1 of 7 residents ( Resident #124) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was in place for a resident with a history of seizures and for 1 of 4 for residents (Resident # 224) reviewed for Respiratory Care, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan for resident requiring respiratory care was develop.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, review of facility policy and staff interviews for 1 of 3 residents( Resident #24) reviewed for pressure ulcers and for the only resident (Resident #38) reviewed for specialized treatment and for the only resident resident ( Resident #324) reviewed for range of motion, the facility failed to revise the resident's care plans.
Inspectors wroteResident #24 Pressure Ulcer/Injury F686 Based on clinical record review interviews and facility policy for 1 of 6 Residents reviewed for Pressure ulcer (#24), the facility failed to ensure staff completed weekly skin checks consistently, completed skin risk assessments quarterly or with change of condition and documented notification of the physician and responsible party with a new change in skin status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 4 residents ( Resident # 224) reviewed for Respiratory Care, the facility failed to ensure staff notified the physician with a change of condition and obtained orders for an invasive procedure and failed to maintain an easily accessible, organized emergency equipment area at the resident's bedside.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy review and interview for 4 of 4 Nurse Aides(NA) ( Nurse Aides #1, # 2 # 3 and # 4), the facility failed to ensure that annual competencies were completed for nurse aide staff for 2023 and 2024.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files, facility documentation review, and facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations were completed for nurse aide staff for 2023 and 2024.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, observation, facility policy and interviews for the only resident reviewed for skin conditions (Resident #46) and the only resident (Resident #224) reviewed for tube feeding, the facility failed to follow the Enhanced Barrier Precautions guidelines.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, review of facility policy and interviews for 2 of 5 ( Residents # 40 and # 325) reviewed for the environment,, the facility did not ensure that residents call bell were within reach.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, review of facility documents, review of policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 2 therapeutic modality machines in the Therapy Department had been evaluated annually for safety in 2022 and 2023 and for 1 of 4 residents ( Resident # 8) reviewed for Respiratory Care, the facility failed to ensure signage was on a resident's door to indicate oxygen was in use.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to complete neurological checks for an unwitnessed fall in full per facility protocol.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #5), reviewed for infection control, the facility failed to implement the required transmission-based precautions as per the facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of seven residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate to include wound care documentation, and for two of seven residents (Resident #5 and #6) reviewed for quality of care, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate to include resident care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #6) reviewed for wound care treatment, the facility failed to ensure wound care was provided in accordance with accepted infection control practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3)residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the State Agency was notified timely of allegations of abuse. Resident #1's diagnoses included generalized muscle weakness and major depressive disorder. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 was cognitively intact, exhibited no behaviors and required substantial assistance with bed mobility, was dependent on staff for transfers and toileting hygiene. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 7/16/24 identified that Resident #1 required assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) with interventions that included to provide an assist of one with ADLs, monitor for complications of immobility and to utilize bed rails as an enabler. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3)residents reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for behaviors, the facility failed to revise the care plan indicating refusals of personal care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed accidents, the facility failed to ensure a resident with dysphagia was provided the correct liquid consistency in accordance with physician orders, resulting in respiratory distress and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for two of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed ensure the resident was free from mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy, facility documentation and interview for 1 resident (Resident #63) reviewed for the environment, the facility failed to ensure resident's wheelchair was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and for 2 of 3 units, the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary, comfortable and homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #12, 41, 62 and 63) reviewed for smoking, the facility failed to ensure that smoking assessments were completed timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to complete nursing competencies related to IV and respiratory therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy, facility contractual agreement, and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for hospice, the facility failed to ensure care was coordinated between the contracted hospice provider and the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interview for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #3 and 239) the facility failed to store personal toiletries according to infection control standards, and the facility failed to review the policy and procedure manual annually, and failed to ensure the environmental rounds for infection control were conducted per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation, facility policy and interviews the facility failed to track infections per the facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 5 of 5 residents (Resident #33, 49, 54, 55, and 66) reviewed for vaccines, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or resident representative were educated about and offered the Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccines.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interview for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #54) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to implement behavior monitoring interventions according to the care plan for a resident on a psychotropic medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #79) reviewed for enteral feeding, the facility failed to ensure the resident's feeding system was labeled according to the policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #49) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the medications were administered via feeding tube per facility policy and gastric residuals were checked prior to medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #32) reviewed for hospitalization, and for all residents transferred to the hospital between 12/7/21 - 2/2/23 (14 months), the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman when the residents were transferred to and/or admitted to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 3 of 4 residents (Resident #41, 62 and 63) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that the MDS reflected an accurate history of tobacco use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility's cleaning policy and interviews for 2 of 11 bathrooms/ toilets observed for cleanliness, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary/clean environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and interview for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #30 and Resident #46) reviewed for hospitalizations, the facility failed to provide a written notice of the bed-hold policy to the resident and the resident's representative.
8 fire safety citations on file: 5 on March 12, 2025, 3 on March 1, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 7, 2025 | Fine | $14,393 |
| July 8, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
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) | 4.08 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.94 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.69 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.07 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.07 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.2% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 14.3% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.71 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 4.24 on weekdays and 3.69 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 7.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.09 in April to June 2025 to 4.08 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 | 4.08 | 0.94 | 4.24 | 3.69 | 7.5% | 0 of 90 | 75 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.14 | 0.96 | 4.30 | 3.74 | 5.6% | 0 of 92 | 75 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.06 | 0.84 | 4.21 | 3.67 | 2.2% | 0 of 92 | 75 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.09 | 0.82 | 4.31 | 3.56 | 1.7% | 0 of 91 | 75 |
| 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 | 20.4 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 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 | 17.0 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 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 | 21.1 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.9 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Village Green Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.9% 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. 66 eligible stays.
12.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Connecticut: 0 better, 3 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 70 eligible stays.
7.0% 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. 46 eligible stays.
50.0% 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. 36 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. 63 residents counted.
4.2% 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. 63 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 22 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: BRISTOL SNF OPERATIONS, LLC. CMS links this home to Atlas Healthcare, a group of 30 nursing homes averaging 3.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bristol SNF Operations Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/27/2025 |
| Hb Bristol Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 8% | 02/27/2025 |
| Ls Bristol Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 8% | 02/27/2025 |
| Sg Bristol Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 8% | 02/27/2025 |
| Gottlieb, Moshe | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Bak, Pinchos | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Bristol Opco Manager LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Bauer, Shannon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Gottlieb, Moshe | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Shahen, Janet | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Yeboah, Benjamin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Hb Bristol Holdings LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Ls Bristol Holdings LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Sg Bristol Holdings LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Gottlieb, Moshe | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Hirsch, Hadassa | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Sonnenschein, Leah | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Tauber, Shaindy | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Bristol SNF Realty Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Bristol SNF Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/15/2025 | |
| Jmh Family LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Jmh Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Mls Family LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Mls Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Sgs Family LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Sgs Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/27/2025 | |
| Gottlieb, Moshe | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/27/2025 | |
| Shahen, Janet | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/04/2025 | |
| Yeboah, Benjamin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/04/2025 |
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.