Ludlowe Center for Health & Rehabilitation
118 Jefferson Street, Fairfield, CT 06825 · Greater Bridgeport County · 144 certified beds · avg 134 residents/day · certified since Dec 12, 1989
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES (42 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
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 6, 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Nov 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 15, 2025 · F-0689
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: Oct 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 2, 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: Nov 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (24)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Oct 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Sep 15, 2025 | ▲ 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. |
| Sep 15, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. |
| Sep 15, 2025 | 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. |
| Sep 15, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 15, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. |
| Sep 15, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 15, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Sep 15, 2025 | 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. |
| Sep 15, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 25, 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 |
| Jan 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 2, 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 |
| Oct 2, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · from a complaint |
| May 30, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint |
| May 30, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Dec 18, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Dec 18, 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. |
| Nov 29, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint |
| Aug 18, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Aug 18, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 8).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 4 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 13 | 2 | G ▲ |
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)
2 fines totaling $47,905.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2025 | Fine | $39,081 |
| Oct 2, 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) | 3.37 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 26% in Connecticut; bottom 30% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 41% in Connecticut; top 41% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.04 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 25% in Connecticut; bottom 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.54 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 25% in Connecticut; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 23.6 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 10% in Connecticut; top 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 43.3 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 40% in Connecticut; bottom 46% 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 4.24, RN 0.83, weekend 3.84. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ostreicher, Marvin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2006 |
| Page, Patricia | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/11/2014 |
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?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
- "Walk me through what happens when a resident or family files a grievance — who responds and how fast?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mozaic Senior Life | 1.0 mi | Bridgeport, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Cambridge Health and Rehabilitation Center | 2.0 mi | Fairfield, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Springs at 3030 Park, the | 2.2 mi | Bridgeport, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Civita Care Northbridge | 2.6 mi | Bridgeport, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Maefair Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 2.7 mi | Trumbull, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Carolton Chronic & Convalescent Hospital INC | 5.5 mi | Fairfield, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Southport Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC | 6.0 mi | Southport, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lord Chamberlain Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 7.6 mi | Stratford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lord Chamberlain Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Ce | 7.6 mi | Stratford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Masonicare at Bishop Wicke Health & Rehabilitation | 8.6 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Gardner Heights Health Care Center, INC | 8.8 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Shelton Lakes | 9.2 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075330.