How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Apple Rehab Shelton Lakes
5 Lake Road, Shelton, CT 06484 (opens Google Maps) · Greater Bridgeport County · (203) 924-2635· 106 certified beds · avg 100 residents/day · certified since Nov 17, 1982 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: APPLE REHAB (20 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 9, 2024
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.41
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 50 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint F-0583
The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint F-0628
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. · from a complaint F-0677
View all 50 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| May 20, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583 |
| May 20, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint · F-0628 |
| Dec 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Sep 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · from a complaint · F-0553 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0761 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0812 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint · F-0919 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Dec 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Nov 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0689 |
| May 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| May 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0684 |
| May 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0689 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · F-0600 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0609 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · F-0712 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0761 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0880 |
| Sep 15, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0677 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0711 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0761 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Nov 21, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (17 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 15 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 17 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 14 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 2 | 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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityConnecticut averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.41
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.52
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.15
Connecticut average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.41 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 30% in Connecticut; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.52 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 36% in Connecticut; bottom 41% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.15 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 36% in Connecticut; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.33 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 38% in Connecticut; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 34.4 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 41% in Connecticut; top 23% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 47.4 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 32% in Connecticut; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 3.53, RN 0.54, weekend 3.26.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.53 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Apple Rehab Shelton Lakes. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Regional context: $525.78/day — Connecticut statewide average for a semi-private nursing-facility room, September 30, 2025. This is a historical regional figure, not this facility's price or a prediction. View the OPM source.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foley, Brian | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/01/2004 |
| Foley, Brian | Individual | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2004 |
| Foley, Brian | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/04/2004 |
| Singh, Devika | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/10/2018 |
| Vess, Ryan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/15/2013 |
| Vess, Ryan | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/15/2013 |
| Vess, Ryan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/15/2013 |
All 7 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Apple Rehab — 20 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Apple Rehab Uncasville — Uncasville, CT · overall 2/5
- Apple Rehab Watertown — Watertown, CT · overall 4/5
- Apple Rehab West Haven — West Haven, CT · overall 1/5
- Gardner Heights Health Care Center, INC — Shelton, CT · overall 2/5
- Hewitt Health & Rehabilitation Center, INC — Shelton, CT · overall 2/5
- Ledgecrest Health Care Center — Kensington, CT · overall 4/5
- Wolcott Hall Nursing Center, INC — Torrington, CT · overall 2/5
- Apple Rehab Clipper — Westerly, RI · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 19 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "How are residents and families included in care plan meetings, and how often do those meetings happen?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you arrange eye and hearing care for residents, including appointments and equipment like glasses or hearing aids?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Connecticut midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 34% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 62 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hewitt Health & Rehabilitation Center, INC | 1.2 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Gardner Heights Health Care Center, INC | 2.1 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Masonicare at Bishop Wicke Health & Rehabilitation | 2.4 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Lord Chamberlain Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 4.6 mi | Stratford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lord Chamberlain Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Ce | 4.6 mi | Stratford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at West River | 6.5 mi | Milford, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Shady Knoll Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 6.7 mi | Seymour, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Orange Health Care Center | 6.8 mi | Orange, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Maefair Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 6.8 mi | Trumbull, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at the Willows | 7.1 mi | Woodbridge, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Milford | 7.2 mi | Milford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| West Haven Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation | 7.8 mi | West Haven, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Greater Bridgeport, CT — 15 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Cambridge Health and Rehabilitation Center — Fairfield, CT · overall 3/5
- Carolton Chronic & Convalescent Hospital INC — Fairfield, CT · overall 1/5
- Civita Care Northbridge — Bridgeport, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Ludlowe Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Fairfield, CT · overall 2/5abuse
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075300.