1165 King Street, Greenwich, CT 06831 (opens Google Maps) · Western Ct County · (203) 531-1335· 217 certified beds · avg 78 residents/day · certified since Jun 24, 1986 · 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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, widespread · Mar 19, 2025 · F-0880
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.
Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.
Severity (L): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was widespread: a systemic or pervasive problem. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Apr 23, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 15, 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 (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 20, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 31 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689
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 19, 2025 | ▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, widespread | 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 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 19, 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 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 19, 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 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | 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 |
| 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 |
| Dec 19, 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 |
| Nov 15, 2024 | ▲ 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 |
| Jul 14, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Jul 14, 2022 | 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 |
| Jul 14, 2022 | 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 |
| Jul 14, 2022 | 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 |
| Jul 14, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770 |
| Jul 14, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · F-0773 |
| Nov 27, 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 |
| Nov 27, 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 |
| Nov 27, 2019 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 19).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 19 | 1 | L ▲ |
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 →
2 fines totaling $130,496.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 19, 2025 | Fine | $122,478 |
| Nov 15, 2024 | 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) | 3.84 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 37% in Connecticut; top 46% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.61 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 50% in Connecticut; top 47% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.45 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 38% in Connecticut; top 44% 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 (%) | 35.1 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 45% in Connecticut; top 24% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 56.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 18% in Connecticut; bottom 26% 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 3.83, RN 0.60, weekend 3.44.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.83 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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 Greenwich Woods Rehabilitation. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bernstein, Moshe | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 03/01/2016 |
| Blass, Mordechai | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 03/01/2016 |
| Greenwich Woods Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 68% | 01/05/2015 |
| Greenwich Woods Rehabilitation LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/18/2014 |
| Ik Greenwich LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 7% | 01/05/2015 |
| Lym GW LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 9% | 01/05/2015 |
| SJJJ LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 16% | 01/05/2015 |
| Brown, Natalie | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/13/2021 |
All 8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| King Street Home INC | 2.4 mi | Port Chester, NY | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Nathaniel Witherell, the | 3.6 mi | Greenwich, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Epic Rehabilitation and Nursing at White Plains | 4.2 mi | White Plains, NY | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Enclave at Rye Rehab and Nursing Ctr | 4.5 mi | Port Chester, NY | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Martine Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing | 5.0 mi | White Plains, NY | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| White Plains Center for Nursing Care, L L C | 5.2 mi | White Plains, NY | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| The Grove at Valhalla Rehab and Nursing Center | 5.2 mi | Valhalla, NY | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Knolls | 5.2 mi | Valhalla, NY | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| The Steven and Alexandra Cohen Ped L T C Pavilion | 5.7 mi | Valhalla, NY | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| The Osborn | 6.2 mi | Rye, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Edgehill Health Center | 6.7 mi | Stamford, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Long Ridge | 7.2 mi | Stamford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
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.
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 075309.
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