Guilford House, the
109 West Lake Avenue, Guilford, CT 06437 · South Central Ct County · 75 certified beds · avg 72 residents/day · certified since Dec 18, 1974
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$8,824
Fines, last 3 years
4.50
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5
⚠ The most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.
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 self-reported quality measures.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Dec 6, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (33)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 22, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Sep 22, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint |
| Oct 15, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jan 8, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 23, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | 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. |
| Oct 23, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. |
| Sep 27, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 27, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. |
| Sep 27, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost. |
| Sep 27, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not give residents important notices in a format and language they can understand — for example, translated documents or accessible formats for those with vision or hearing loss. |
| Sep 27, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. |
| Sep 27, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. |
| May 17, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| May 17, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. |
| May 17, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| May 17, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 17, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 17, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. |
| May 17, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 17, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 17, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. |
| May 17, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 12).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2021 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 12 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 2 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 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)
1 fine totaling $8,824.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2024 | Fine | $8,824 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.50 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 19% in Connecticut; top 23% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 34% in Connecticut; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.35 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 11% in Connecticut; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.51 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 30% in Connecticut; top 31% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.2 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 41% in Connecticut; top 34% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 18.2 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 15% in Connecticut; top 12% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day, 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 4.44, RN 0.69, weekend 4.29. Staffing rating: 5/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moffie, Calvin | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 10/01/2002 |
| Dolce, Tim | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/19/2014 |
| Moffie, Calvin | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/07/2015 |
| Moffie, Calvin | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2002 |
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?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evergreen Woods | 1.4 mi | North Branford, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Guilford | 4.4 mi | Guilford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Madison | 4.8 mi | Madison, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Ark Healthcare & Rehabilitation at Branford Hills | 7.1 mi | Branford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Laurel Woods | 7.5 mi | East Haven, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Montowese Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 7.6 mi | North Haven, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Whispering Pines Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 8.0 mi | East Haven, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| New Haven Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC | 8.0 mi | New Haven, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Mary Wade Home | 8.6 mi | New Haven, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Leeway, INC | 9.0 mi | New Haven, CT | ★★★★☆ | 5/5 | |
| Twin Maples Healthcare, INC | 10.4 mi | Durham, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Whitney Center | 10.4 mi | Hamden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075235.