494 Elm St, Stamford, CT 06902 (opens Google Maps) · Western Ct County · (203) 325-0200· 124 certified beds · avg 117 residents/day · certified since Oct 5, 1988 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 23, 2026 · F-0605 · triggered by a complaint
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Why it matters: Using sedating drugs as a 'chemical restraint' can rob residents of alertness and mobility and increases risks of falls and death, especially in people with dementia.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 18, 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Nov 27, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · from a complaint F-0605
The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint F-0602
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint F-0755
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2026 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · from a complaint · F-0605 |
| Jun 23, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Jun 23, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Apr 27, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 27, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887 |
| Apr 27, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 27, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Apr 27, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 27, 2026 | 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. · F-0657 |
| Apr 27, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 27, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| Oct 18, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0585 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0686 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 11, 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 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Mar 22, 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 |
| Dec 20, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0686 |
| Dec 20, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 20, 2021 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 8).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 10 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 11 | 1 | J ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $8,018.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 3.55 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 41% in Connecticut; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.45 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 24% in Connecticut; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.23 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 41% in Connecticut; bottom 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.29 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 29% in Connecticut; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 34.7 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 44% in Connecticut; top 23% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 36.4 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 45% in Connecticut; top 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 3.48, RN 0.45, weekend 3.16.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.48 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Ark Healthcare & Rehabilitation at St. Camillus. 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.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fried, Akiva | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 17% | 10/15/2020 |
| Sodden, Aaron | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 17% | 10/15/2020 |
| Wiesel, Allan | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 17% | 10/15/2020 |
| Fried, Akiva | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Fried, Akiva | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Sodden, Aaron | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Sodden, Aaron | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Stein, Allen | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Stein, Allen | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Wiesel, Allan | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Wiesel, Allan | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
All 11 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stamford Care Center | 1.0 mi | Stamford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Edgehill Health Center | 2.1 mi | Stamford, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Long Ridge | 3.5 mi | Stamford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Nathaniel Witherell, the | 5.2 mi | Greenwich, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Waveny Care Center | 5.7 mi | New Canaan, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Villa at Stamford, the | 6.5 mi | Stamford, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Norwalk Care Center | 7.0 mi | Norwalk, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| King Street Home INC | 7.7 mi | Port Chester, NY | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Notre Dame Health and Rehabilitation Center | 8.2 mi | Norwalk, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Norwalk | 8.6 mi | Norwalk, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Greenwich Woods Rehabilitation | 8.7 mi | Greenwich, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Enclave at Rye Rehab and Nursing Ctr | 8.8 mi | Port Chester, NY | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Western Ct, CT — 20 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
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 075320.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details