How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Autumn Lake Healthcare at Glen Hill
1 Glen Hill Rd, Danbury, CT 06811 (opens Google Maps) · Western Ct County · (203) 744-2840· 100 certified beds · avg 94 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · 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 →
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 9, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
2.91
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: 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 30 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. F-0607
View all 30 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0656 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 9, 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. · F-0677 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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. · F-0584 |
| May 23, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| May 23, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve meals and snacks at times that fit residents' needs, preferences, and requests, or did not offer nourishing alternatives for residents who want to eat outside scheduled meal times. · F-0809 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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 |
| May 23, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
| May 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| May 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0578 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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. · F-0580 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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 |
| May 23, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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 |
| May 23, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 14, 2021 | 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 |
| Jan 14, 2021 | 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. · F-0580 |
| Jan 14, 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (16 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | E |
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: 2.91
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.62
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.78
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) | 2.91 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 4% in Connecticut; bottom 11% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 49% in Connecticut; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.78 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 9% in Connecticut; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.58 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 22% in Connecticut; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 40.0 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 37% in Connecticut; top 36% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 37.5 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 46% in Connecticut; top 42% 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 3.31, RN 0.71, weekend 3.17.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.31 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Glen Hill. 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 - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glen Ct Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 09/01/2024 |
| KC Derby GH Opco JV LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 09/01/2024 |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
| Perez, Rhea | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
| Ruxin, Robert | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
| Schwartz, Mark | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
| Stern, Samuel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2024 |
All 8 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
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 did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
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 40% 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 33 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civita Care Center at Danbury | 0.8 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Havencare at Filosa | 1.8 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Havencare at Hancock Hall | 1.8 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Saint John Paul II Center | 2.1 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Bethel Health Care Center | 2.6 mi | Bethel, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Laurel Ridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 6.4 mi | Ridgefield, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Putnam Ridge | 6.6 mi | Brewster, NY | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Stone Bridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 9.7 mi | Newtown, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Ridge Crest at Meadow Ridge | 10.5 mi | West Redding, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| River Glen Health Care Center | 11.4 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Village Crest Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 11.9 mi | New Milford, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Waterview Hills Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 12.2 mi | Purdy Station, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
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.
- Autumn Lake Healthcare at Norwalk — Norwalk, CT · overall 2/5
- Civita Care Center at Long Ridge — Stamford, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Edgehill Health Center — Stamford, CT · overall 5/5
- Greenwich Woods Rehabilitation — Greenwich, CT · overall 1/5
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 075031.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).