How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Fresh River Healthcare
96 Prospect Hill Rd, East Windsor, CT 06088 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 623-9846· 140 certified beds · avg 127 residents/day · certified since Oct 1, 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: ICARE HEALTH NETWORK (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 11, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.57
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 25 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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). · from a complaint F-0628
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 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
View all 25 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2025 | 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). · from a complaint · F-0628 |
| Jun 11, 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. · F-0684 |
| Jun 11, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Mar 5, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Dec 19, 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 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Dec 19, 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Dec 19, 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 |
| Aug 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Aug 13, 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 |
| Aug 13, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Jan 24, 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 |
| Jan 24, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 18, 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 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | 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 |
| Jun 28, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 28, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 28, 2021 | 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 28, 2021 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 (6 → 3).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
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 | E |
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 9 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 5 | 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: 3.57
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.43
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.29
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) | 3.57 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 42% in Connecticut; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.43 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 17% in Connecticut; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.29 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 47% in Connecticut; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.21 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 7% in Connecticut; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 23.2 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 9% in Connecticut; top 5% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 10.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 3% in Connecticut; top 4% 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 3.00, RN 0.36, weekend 2.77.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.00 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: —/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Fresh River Healthcare. 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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global World Investors | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 10% | 04/01/1999 |
| Krausz, Hersch | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 21% | 04/01/1999 |
| Premier First Investors, LLLP | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 10% | 04/01/1999 |
| Salazar, V. Robert | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 31% | 04/01/1999 |
| Sebbag, David | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 21% | 04/01/1999 |
| Wright, Christopher | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 04/01/1999 |
| Wright, Christopher | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/1999 |
All 7 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 Icare Health Network — 12 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.
- Parkville Care Center — Hartford, CT · overall 3/5
- Silver Springs Care Center — Meriden, CT · overall 3/5abuse
- Touchpoints at Bloomfield — Bloomfield, CT · overall 4/5
- Touchpoints at Chestnut — East Windsor, CT · overall 3/5
- Touchpoints at Manchester — Manchester, CT · overall 4/5
- Trinity Hill Care Center — Hartford, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Westside Care Center — Manchester, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Mission Care at Holyoke — Holyoke, MA · overall 1/5abuse
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 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 written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
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 23% 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 70 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Touchpoints at Chestnut | 0.6 mi | East Windsor, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bickford Health Care Center | 1.1 mi | Windsor Locks, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| St Joseph's Residence | 3.4 mi | Enfield, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Suffield House Rehabilitation and Healthcare Cente | 4.2 mi | Suffield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Parkway Pavilion Health and Rehabilitation Center | 4.3 mi | Enfield, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Windsor | 4.6 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall-South | 6.7 mi | Windsor, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall North | 6.7 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Seabury | 8.2 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Vernon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 8.3 mi | Vernon, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Touchpoints at Bloomfield | 8.6 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bloomfield Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation | 9.0 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | 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.
- Glastonbury Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Glastonbury, CT · overall 3/5
- Grandview Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — New Britain, CT · overall —/5abuseSFF
- Hebrew Center for Health and Rehabilitation — West Hartford, CT · overall 3/5abuse
- Jefferson House — Newington, CT · overall 5/5
- Jerome Home — New Britain, CT · overall 5/5
- John L. Levitow Health Care Center — Rocky Hill, CT · overall 5/5
- Ledgecrest Health Care Center — Kensington, CT · overall 4/5
- Livewell Connecticut — Plantsville, CT · overall 5/5
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 075359.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).