Home / Connecticut / Wilton
439 Danbury Rd, Route 7, Wilton, CT 06897 · Western Ct County · (203) 834-0199
148 certified beds, about 128 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1988
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075317 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on October 9, 2024, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 39 health citations since January 2020, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,452 in the last three years; the largest was $16,452, and the latest is dated April 19, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.88 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
39.7% 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 39 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from verbal 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 ensure a resident was free from abuse resulting in a fracture.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had completed the required annual skill competencies as identified through the facility assessment and for the only sampled resident (Resident #77) reviewed for enteral feeding, the facility failed to ensure an agency nurse had the required competencies to replace a feeding tube.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 5 of 5 certified nurse aide personnel files (NA #1, 2, 6, 7, and 8), the facility failed to ensure nurse aide performance evaluations were completed annually.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that testing supplies used to ensure chemical sanitizing solution was at recommended concentration levels were not expired; and failed to ensure that the chemical sanitizing solution was maintained at the recommended sanitation level; and failed to ensure a policy was in place regarding testing and changing chemical sanitizing solution; and failed to ensure that unit nourishment refrigerators were maintained to the proper temperatures; failed to ensure that food items stored in the resident nourishment refrigerators were dated and labeled.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and interviews the facility failed to have a qualified infection preventionist (IP).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #87 and #378) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to notify the physician and resident representative when new open areas were identified and 1 of 2 residents (Resident #274) reviewed for admission, the facility failed to notify the physician when a 2 glaucoma medications were not available and when a resident was admitted to the facility with an implanted cardiac defibrillator which required a bedside monitor.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #24, 39 and 87) reviewed for abuse and pressure ulcers, the facility failed to protect Resident #24 from physical abuse by Resident #19, who had a history of resident to resident altercations, failed to protect Resident #39 from physical abuse by Resident #24, who had a history of resident to resident altercations and the facility a failed to ensure the Resident #87 was not neglected when staff did not complete a daily dressing change to a pressure ulcer on the resident's heel for 4 consecutive days despite documenting that the dressing change had been done.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to convey appropriate information when the resident was sent to the hospital on 8/26/23.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #274) reviewed for admission, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan was completed upon admission and included interventions related to the residents implanted cardiac defibrillator.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #30 and 100) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL), the facility failed to ensure the residents were provided a shower on scheduled shower days.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interview for 5 residents (Resident #13, 26, 32, 274 and 378) the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive care plan, and the residents' choices. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #26, 87 and 378) reviewed for pressure ulcers, for Resident #26 the facility failed to ensure weekly skin audits were completed per the physician's order, and failed to ensure a complete and accurate nursing assessment was documented, upon identifying a new skin issue, and for Resident #87 the facility failed to ensure weekly body audits and Braden scales were completed per physician's order, failed to complete a RN assessment of a newly identified pressure ulcer, failed to immediately obtain a treatment order for a newly identified pressure ulcer, failed to perform weekly pressure ulcer assessments, failed to notify the dietitian timely of new pressure ulcer, and complete treatments daily per the physician's order and for Resident #378 the facility [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #56) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure weights were obtained per the physician's order; failed to notify the physician of a significant weight loss and failed to implement interventions following a significant weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #28 and 66) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy recommendations were responded to by the physician or APRN.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews the facility failed to ensure the infection preventionist, (IP) conducted environmental rounds at least quarterly per the facility policy, and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #87) reviewed for pressure ulcer, the facility failed to use appropriate infection control practices when providing wound care, and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #374) reviewed for transmission-based precautions, the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff maintained proper infection control techniques and hand hygiene for a resident with a highly contagious bacteria, and failed to ensure that resident nourishment areas were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for medication errors (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure that multiple nurses followed the five rights of medication administration in accordance with nursing standards of practice. Resident #1 was administered morphine (an opioid pain medication) at ten (10) times the prescribed dose on three separate occasions resulting in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for medication administration (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure the that the resident was free from a significant medication error. Two (2) nurses failed to check the strength/concentration of morphine (an opioid pain medication) prior to administration, and administered the medication at ten (10) times the prescribed dose on three (3) separate occasions, resulting in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for medication errors, (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure a significant medication error was reported timely to the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for medication errors, (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate to include vital signs.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) sampled residents (Resident #1) who required the assistance of two (2) staff members with getting in and out of the bed and chair, the facility failed to ensure the physician's order for transfer status was followed to prevent an injury, Resident #1 sustained a laceration to the right lower leg.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and interview for one (1) of (3) three residents, (Resident #1), reviewed for a impaired skin integrity, the facility failed to follow physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records and interview for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, (Resident #1), the facility failed to follow a physician's orders for wound care, failed to measure a pressure ulcer in accordance to facility policy, and failed to ensure a pressure relieving device was in place.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and interview for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had education prior to caring for a resident that required a specialized therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who required staff assistance with transferring in and out of the bed and chair or on and off the toilet, the facility failed to utilize a mechanical lift and the number of staff required to transfer the resident in accordance with the physician's order to prevent a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of four residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed ensure the resident was free from mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation review, facility policy, and interviews for five of seven medication carts, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a clean, sanitary manner, and were labeled properly.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation and interviews, for one sampled resident (Resident #1) who received a medication to treat a certain type of breast cancer, the facility failed to administer the medication per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #72) who had an unwitnessed fall, the facility failed to immediately send the resident to the hospital for treatment after the RN assessment demonstrated that the resident was exhibiting pain in the left leg including guarding. Further, the facility failed to adhere to professional standards of practice when staff log rolled the resident onto a sheet and carried the resident down the hall to his/her room approximately 50 feet away to put the resident to bed. Subsequently, the resident continued to exhibit pain, and vomited, and after physician notification was sent to the hospital, over 5 hours later, and diagnosed with a left intertrochanteric fracture which required surgery including an IM nail to correct. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #51 and 91) reviewed for allegations of resident to resident abuse, the facility failed to protect the resident from physical abuse by another resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #104) reviewed for code status (the level of medical intervention a person wishes to have started if their heart or breathing were to stop), the facility failed to verify the presence of advance directives or the resident ' s wishes with regard to CPR, upon admission, and failed to immediately document discussions with the resident or resident representative, including, as appropriate, a resident ' s wish to refuse CPR.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #49) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure the specialty air mattress was consistently maintained on the appropriate setting according to the residents weight and as per the physicians orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 5 residents, (Resident #20 and 21) the facility failed to administer the pneumococcal vaccine after the resident representative signed the consent to do so, and for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #65) the facility the facility failed to ensure the pneumococcal vaccine was offered on admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #36, 60, 62, 119) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman when the residents were transferred and admitted to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy and interviews during the initial kitchen tour, the facility failed to appropriately label open food and refrigerated food to ensure food is stored, prepared and distributed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and/or procedures and interviews for one of two residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #54) the facility failed to implement a fall assessment to determine the resident's risk for falls to ensure the facility meet professional standards.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #58) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to follow a physician order to take a blood pressure.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and interview for one of two residents in survey sample reviewed for indwelling catheter use (Resident #118), the facility failed to maintain the catheter in accordance to professional standards to prevent the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record, interviews and review of facility policy for one of five residents reviewed for Infection Control (immunizations) Resident #5, the facility failed to implement the facility policy for pneumococcal vaccination.
16 fire safety citations on file: 4 on October 9, 2024, 1 on June 28, 2022, 11 on January 16, 2020.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 19, 2024 | Fine | $16,452 |
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) | 3.88 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.55 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.23 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.25 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.7% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 61.1% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.02 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 4.01 on weekdays and 3.55 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.94 in April to June 2025 to 3.88 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 | 3.88 | 0.41 | 4.01 | 3.55 | 2.0% | 0 of 90 | 128 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.98 | 0.43 | 4.12 | 3.62 | 2.1% | 0 of 92 | 123 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.78 | 0.41 | 3.92 | 3.41 | 3.1% | 0 of 92 | 129 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.94 | 0.46 | 4.09 | 3.56 | 4.1% | 0 of 91 | 123 |
| 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 | 20.8 | 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 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.3 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.6 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.6 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.5 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Wilton Meadows Health Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (67.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
67.2% this home
Better 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. 451 eligible stays.
10.4% 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. 459 eligible stays.
7.6% 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. 306 eligible stays.
40.1% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut58.9% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 152 residents counted.
0.4% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 234 residents counted.
2.8% 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. 234 residents counted.
92.2% 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. 103 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: WILTON MEADOWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rzepka, Fred | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 16% | 12/01/1986 |
| Rzepka, Peter | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 12% | 12/01/1986 |
| Rzepka, Fred | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 58% | 12/01/1986 |
| Rzepka, Peter | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 42% | 12/01/1986 |
| Bucci, Ronald | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/01/2016 | |
| Krochko, Andrew | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/31/2006 | |
| Bucci, Ronald | Corporate director | Individual | 05/01/2016 | |
| Krochko, Andrew | Corporate director | Individual | 04/24/2017 | |
| Rzepka, Fred | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 12/01/1986 | |
| Rzepka, Peter | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 11/24/1986 |
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.