How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Complete Care at Glendale
4 Hazel Ave, Naugatuck, CT 06770 (opens Google Maps) · Naugatuck Vly County · (203) 723-1456· 120 certified beds · avg 111 residents/day · certified since Jun 10, 1975 · 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: COMPLETE CARE (85 facilities, chain avg rating 3.1★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 14, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 4, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.18
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jan 4, 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jan 4, 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 (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.
Corrected: Dec 12, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 31 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0656
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 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
View all 31 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Jan 14, 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 |
| Jan 14, 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). · F-0628 |
| Jan 14, 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 |
| Jan 14, 2026 | 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 14, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 14, 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. · F-0689 |
| Jan 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Jan 14, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 14, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 14, 2026 | 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 14, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
| May 15, 2025 | 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 15, 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 |
| Jan 26, 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 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Jan 26, 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 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 26, 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 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 26, 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 26, 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 4, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Aug 31, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Aug 31, 2021 | 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 |
| Aug 31, 2021 | 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 |
| Aug 31, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Aug 31, 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 stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (11 → 11).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 12
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 | 5 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 12 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 12 | 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: 3.18
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.56
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.86
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) | 3.18 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 13% in Connecticut; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.56 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 41% in Connecticut; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.86 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 12% in Connecticut; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.31 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 35% in Connecticut; bottom 34% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 35.7 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 49% in Connecticut; top 26% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 30.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 33% in Connecticut; top 29% 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 3.50, RN 0.61, weekend 3.15.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.50 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: 5/5 · 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 Complete Care at Glendale. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC Ct Opcos LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 09/01/2021 |
| PC Wta Opco Holdco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 09/01/2021 |
| SMS 2021 Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 09/01/2021 |
| Stein, Shalom | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Aurora Guardian Ct Co-Borrower LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Aurora Guardian Ct Holdco, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Aurora Guardian Ct Mezz Borrower LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Aurora Guardian Ct Realty, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Aurora Guardian Partners Ct LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Glendale Center Realty, LLC (complete Care at Glendale) | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Hoch, Robert | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Hoch, Robert | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| J & R Family Investments, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Koliani, Leonard | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2021 |
| Koliani, Leonard | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| L Friedman 2018 Family Trust | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| L Friedman Family Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Lagana, Kristin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Lagana, Kristin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Landau Family Investment Trust | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
Showing 20 of 36 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 16 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Complete Care — 85 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.
- Complete Care at Groton Regency — Groton, CT · overall 5/5
- 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
- Complete Care at Meriden — Meriden, CT · overall 4/5
- Complete Care at Middlebury — Middlebury, CT · overall 5/5
- Complete Care at Brackenville LLC — Hockessin, DE · overall 4/5
- Complete Care at Hillside LLC — Wilmington, DE · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 84 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?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "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?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
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 36% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 36 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 69 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beacon Brook Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 0.2 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Shady Knoll Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 4.9 mi | Seymour, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cheshire House Health Care Facility & Rehab Center | 5.9 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Complete Care at Middlebury | 6.3 mi | Middlebury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Elim Park Baptist Home, INC | 6.9 mi | Cheshire, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC | 7.8 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Cheshire | 7.8 mi | Cheshire, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Hamden Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center | 8.0 mi | Hamden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Watertown | 8.1 mi | Watertown, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Bucks Hill | 8.5 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Whitney Rehabilitation Care Center | 8.7 mi | Hamden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Arden Care Center | 8.8 mi | Hamden, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Naugatuck Vly, CT — 20 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Cook Willow Health & Rehabilitation Center, INC. — Plymouth, CT · overall 5/5
- Ingraham Manor Rehab and Nursing — Bristol, CT · overall 2/5
- Lutheran Home of Southbury INC — Southbury, CT · overall 3/5
- Masonicare Health Center — Wallingford, CT · overall 2/5
- Orange Health Care Center — Orange, CT · overall 5/5
- Pines at Bristol for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the — Bristol, CT · overall 4/5
- Pomperaug Woods Health Center — Southbury, CT · overall 4/5
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 075240.