Aaron Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation
3 South Wig Hill Rd, Chester, CT 06412 · Lower Ct River Vly County · 60 certified beds · avg 56 residents/day · certified since Nov 6, 1995
Part of chain: RYDERS HEALTH MANAGEMENT (7 facilities, chain avg rating 1.7★)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 12, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Dec 23, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 12, 2024 · F-0692
The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Dec 23, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 26, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Apr 8, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (34)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint |
| Mar 11, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint |
| Mar 11, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint |
| Nov 12, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint |
| Nov 12, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. |
| Nov 12, 2024 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint |
| Feb 26, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint |
| Jan 18, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. |
| Jan 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
| Feb 20, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. |
| Feb 20, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Feb 20, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. |
| Feb 20, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. |
| Feb 20, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (12 → 12).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 14 | 3 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 3 | 0 | D |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
2 fines totaling $20,872.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2024 | Fine | $12,854 |
| Feb 26, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.76 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 43% in Connecticut; bottom 50% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.11 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 11% in Connecticut; top 12% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.34 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 48% in Connecticut; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.79 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 9% in Connecticut; top 11% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 30.9 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 28% in Connecticut; top 16% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 7.7 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 2% in Connecticut; top 3% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.59, RN 1.06, weekend 3.19. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sbriglio, Martin | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 48% | 02/01/1995 |
| Sbriglio, Robert | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 48% | 02/01/1995 |
| Sbriglio, Martin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1995 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essex Meadows Health Center | 5.6 mi | Essex, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Chestelm Health and Rehabilitation Center | 6.0 mi | Moodus, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Gladeview Health Care Center | 8.4 mi | Old Saybrook, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Saybrook | 8.6 mi | Old Saybrook, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Madison | 11.5 mi | Madison, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cobalt Lodge Health Care and Rehabilitation Center | 11.7 mi | Cobalt, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Twin Maples Healthcare, INC | 11.9 mi | Durham, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Guilford | 11.9 mi | Guilford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Bride Brook Rehabilitation & Nursing Center | 13.2 mi | Niantic, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Middletown | 13.3 mi | Middletown, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075410.