400 N Main St, Bristol, CT 06010 (opens Google Maps) · Naugatuck Vly County · (860) 584-3400· 128 certified beds · avg 111 residents/day · certified since Dec 29, 1989 · 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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
⚠ 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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 20, 2026 · F-0678 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.
Why it matters: In a cardiac or breathing emergency, failure to start CPR promptly can be the difference between life and death.
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 18, 2025 · 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: Nov 19, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 8, 2025 · 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: Nov 6, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 17 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint F-0678
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. · from a complaint F-0578
The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint F-0725
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 20, 2026 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint · F-0678 |
| Feb 20, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0578 |
| Feb 20, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint · F-0725 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Sep 8, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Sep 8, 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 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | 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 |
| Sep 6, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Aug 23, 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 |
| Aug 23, 2021 | 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. · F-0656 |
| Aug 23, 2021 | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2021 | 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 |
| Apr 26, 2019 | 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 |
| Apr 26, 2019 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 4).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2021 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 3 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 3 | 1 | J ▲ |
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 →
3 fines totaling $34,369.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2026 | Fine | $14,901 |
| Sep 8, 2025 | Fine | $8,278 |
| Sep 8, 2025 | Fine | $11,190 |
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) | 3.52 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 39% in Connecticut; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.48 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 29% in Connecticut; bottom 35% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.13 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 35% in Connecticut; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.41 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 48% in Connecticut; top 47% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.1 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 44% in Connecticut; top 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 22.2 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 21% in Connecticut; top 17% 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 3.88, RN 0.53, weekend 3.45.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.88 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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Ingraham Manor Rehab and Nursing. 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 · changed ownership in the last 12 months
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shakow, Rachel | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 99% | 10/21/2025 |
| Altows, Kamal | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/21/2025 |
| Elaba, Wilfred | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/21/2025 |
| Elaba, Wilfred | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/12/2025 |
| Im Management LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/21/2025 |
| LTC Consulting Services LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/21/2025 |
| Shakow, Rachel | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/21/2025 |
| Shakow, Rachel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/21/2025 |
| Tkacz, Christine | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/21/2025 |
| Tkacz, Christine | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/12/2025 |
All 10 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pines at Bristol for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the | 0.4 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Civita Care Sheriden Woods | 1.4 mi | Bristol, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Village Green Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 2.3 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Farmington Valley | 4.9 mi | Plainville, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Cook Willow Health & Rehabilitation Center, INC. | 5.8 mi | Plymouth, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Summit at Plantsville Center for Health & Rehabili | 6.6 mi | Plantsville, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Southington Care Center | 6.8 mi | Southington, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Bucks Hill | 7.2 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Jerome Home | 7.5 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Monsignor Bojnowski Manor, INC | 7.7 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Livewell Connecticut | 7.8 mi | Plantsville, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Avon Health Center | 7.9 mi | Avon, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
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.
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 075329.
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