How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Lutheran Home of Southbury INC
990 North Main Street, Southbury, CT 06488 (opens Google Maps) · Naugatuck Vly County · (203) 264-9135· 120 certified beds · avg 116 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 →
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 17, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.45
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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 F-0602
View all 35 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 27, 2026 | 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 |
| May 27, 2026 | 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 |
| Dec 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0602 |
| Dec 1, 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 |
| Dec 1, 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 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0585 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents from being involuntarily separated — kept apart from other residents, kept out of their own room, or confined to their room. Isolating a resident this way is a form of mistreatment. · F-0603 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | 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. · F-0550 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0580 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | 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. · F-0609 |
| Jun 17, 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 17, 2025 | 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. · F-0689 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · F-0810 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0580 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint · F-0604 |
| Sep 23, 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 |
| Sep 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Sep 23, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0580 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | 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. · F-0609 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | 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. · F-0610 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | 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 29, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | 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 29, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Jul 20, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 20, 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 |
| Jul 20, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0580 |
| Jul 20, 2021 | 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 |
| Jul 20, 2021 | 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. · F-0689 |
| Jul 20, 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 |
| Jul 20, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
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 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 8 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 15 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 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)
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: 4.45
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.66
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.87
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) | 4.45 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 20% in Connecticut; top 25% 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 | 3.87 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 22% in Connecticut; top 27% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.26 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 20% in Connecticut; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 49.2 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 14% in Connecticut; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 52.6 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 22% in Connecticut; bottom 32% 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 4.25, RN 0.63, weekend 3.69.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.25 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Lutheran Home of Southbury INC. 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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ascentria Care Alliance INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/08/2015 |
| Ascentria Care Alliance INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/25/2025 |
| Baroody, Ziad | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Baroody, Ziad | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Bartholomew, Alexander | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Bartholomew, Alexander | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Bovill, Angela | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2018 |
| Bovill, Angela | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2014 |
| Bovill, Angela | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2025 |
| Browne, Tara | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Browne, Tara | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/14/2024 |
| Cowlagi, Ashish | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Goodman, Ross | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2013 |
| Hanscom, Kristin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Hanscom, Kristin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/30/2024 |
| Khan, Ghulam | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Khan, Ghulam | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mayo, William | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2014 |
| Oneal, Gary | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Oneal, Gary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/14/2024 |
Showing 20 of 25 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 5 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "Walk me through what happens when a resident or family files a grievance — who responds and how fast?"
- "Under what circumstances, if any, would a resident ever be kept in their room or separated from others?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 49% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 25 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 49 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pomperaug Woods Health Center | 1.4 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| River Glen Health Care Center | 3.3 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Middlebury | 5.4 mi | Middlebury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Watertown | 7.7 mi | Watertown, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC | 8.4 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Stone Bridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 9.0 mi | Newtown, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Glendale | 9.4 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Beacon Brook Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 9.6 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Shady Knoll Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 10.7 mi | Seymour, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Bethel Health Care Center | 11.2 mi | Bethel, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Bucks Hill | 11.3 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Village Crest Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 11.6 mi | New Milford, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
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.
- Masonicare Health Center — Wallingford, CT · overall 2/5
- Orange Health Care Center — Orange, CT · overall 5/5
- Pines at Bristol for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the — Bristol, CT · overall 4/5
- Regency House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Wallingford, CT · overall 5/5
- Skyview Rehab and Nursing — Wallingford, CT · overall 3/5
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 075371.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).