140 Cook Hill Rd, Cheshire, CT 06410 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (203) 272-3547· 90 certified beds · avg 79 residents/day · certified since Mar 20, 1976 · 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: 5/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 27, 2023 · 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: Dec 24, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 19 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 provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. F-0684
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. F-0804
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2024 | 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 |
| Sep 13, 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 |
| Sep 13, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Sep 13, 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 |
| Sep 13, 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. · F-0580 |
| Sep 13, 2024 | 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 |
| Sep 13, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not properly protect the personal money residents deposited with it for safekeeping. · F-0570 |
| Nov 27, 2023 | ▲ 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 |
| Jun 7, 2022 | 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 7, 2022 | 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 |
| Jun 7, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 25, 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 |
| Oct 25, 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 |
| Oct 25, 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 |
| Oct 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 25, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 8 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 1 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 27, 2023 | 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) | 4.87 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 10% in Connecticut; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.85 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 24% in Connecticut; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.55 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 9% in Connecticut; top 11% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.56 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 24% in Connecticut; top 27% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.8 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 39% in Connecticut; top 36% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 25.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 26% in Connecticut; top 20% 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 4.37, RN 0.77, weekend 4.09.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.37 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Elim Park Baptist Home, INC. 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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adetola, Adedayo | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2016 |
| Adetola, Adedayo | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/12/2026 |
| Bedard, Brian | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/09/2017 |
| Bedard, Brian | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/09/2017 |
| Ecker, Roberto | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/03/2011 |
| Hoffman, Vicki | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/26/2022 |
| Nelson, Chris | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2014 |
| Pascetta, Michelle | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/27/2023 |
| Pascetta, Michelle | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/27/2023 |
| Ponzani, Timothy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/23/2019 |
| Sweeney, John | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/21/2019 |
| Sweeney, John | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/10/2025 |
All 12 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skyview Rehab and Nursing | 3.0 mi | Wallingford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Masonicare Health Center | 3.4 mi | Wallingford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Cheshire | 3.5 mi | Cheshire, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Whitney Rehabilitation Care Center | 4.8 mi | Hamden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Hamden Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center | 5.3 mi | Hamden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Regency House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 5.4 mi | Wallingford, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Arden Care Center | 6.4 mi | Hamden, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Silver Springs Care Center | 6.4 mi | Meriden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Curtis Home St Elizabeth Center, the | 6.5 mi | Meriden, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cheshire House Health Care Facility & Rehab Center | 6.6 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Beacon Brook Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 6.7 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Complete Care at Glendale | 6.9 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
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.
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 075265.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details