How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Civita Care Meadowbrook
350 Salmon Brook Street, Granby, CT 06035 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 653-9888· 90 certified beds · avg 83 residents/day · certified since Nov 20, 1991 · 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: ATHENA HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS (22 facilities, chain avg rating 1.5★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 2, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.82
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: ★★★★☆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.
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 keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
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. · from a complaint F-0745
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0745 |
| Dec 2, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 2, 2025 | 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 2, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| Dec 2, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 2, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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). · F-0628 |
| Dec 2, 2025 | 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 |
| Jul 3, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaint · F-0655 |
| Jun 5, 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 |
| Jun 5, 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 |
| Jun 5, 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. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| Jan 23, 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 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 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. · F-0657 |
| Jan 23, 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 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Jan 23, 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. · F-0684 |
| Jan 23, 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 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 26, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 26, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 26, 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 |
| Oct 26, 2021 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 7).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 7
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 17 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 7 | 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: 3.82
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.47
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.55
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) | 3.82 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 39% in Connecticut; top 47% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.47 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 26% in Connecticut; bottom 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.55 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 31% in Connecticut; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 43% in Connecticut; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 21.3 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 6% in Connecticut; top 4% 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 3.54, RN 0.43, weekend 3.29.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.54 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Civita Care Meadowbrook. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chakalos-Santilli, Valerie | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 6% | 06/07/2012 |
| Curtis, Diane | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 06/07/2012 |
| Mosier, Michael | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 7% | 06/07/2012 |
| Santilli, Lawrence | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 73% | 12/31/2018 |
| Athena Health Care Associates, INC. | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Mosier, Michael | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/06/1990 |
All 6 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 Athena Healthcare Systems — 22 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.
- Civita Care Northbridge — Bridgeport, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Civita Care Sheriden Woods — Bristol, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Wadsworth Glen Health Care and Rehabilitation Cent — Middletown, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Berkshire Rehabilitation & Skilled Care Center — Sandisfield, MA · overall 2/5abuse
- Cape Heritage Rehabilitation & Health Care Center — Sandwich, MA · overall 2/5
- Cape Regency Rehabilitation & Health Care Center — Centerville, MA · overall 1/5
- Lanessa Extended Care — Webster, MA · overall 1/5
- Marlborough Hills Rehabilitation & Health Care Cen — Marlborough, MA · overall 1/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 21 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.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Who provides social services here, and how would they support my family member's emotional and social needs?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "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?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 21% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McLean Health Center | 5.8 mi | Simsbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Ark Healthcare & Rehabilitation at Governors House | 6.5 mi | Simsbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Bickford Health Care Center | 8.9 mi | Windsor Locks, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Suffield House Rehabilitation and Healthcare Cente | 9.3 mi | Suffield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Touchpoints at Chestnut | 9.4 mi | East Windsor, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Windsor | 9.5 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Caleb Hitchcock Health Center | 9.5 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Fresh River Healthcare | 10.0 mi | East Windsor, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Seabury | 10.1 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Westfield Rehabilitation and Health Center | 10.2 mi | Westfield, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| St Joseph's Residence | 10.3 mi | Enfield, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Parkway Pavilion Health and Rehabilitation Center | 10.3 mi | Enfield, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Capitol, CT — 65 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Complete Care at Fox Hill — Vernon, CT · overall 2/5
- Complete Care at Harrington Court — Colchester, CT · overall 2/5
- Complete Care at Kimberly Hall North — Windsor, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Complete Care at Kimberly Hall-South — Windsor, CT · overall 4/5
- Elim Park Baptist Home, INC — Cheshire, CT · overall 5/5
- Evergreen Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Stafford Springs, CT · overall 3/5
- Glastonbury Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Glastonbury, CT · overall 3/5
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 075367.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).