Connecticut ›Bridgeport

Mozaic Senior Life

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

4200 Park Avenue, Bridgeport, CT 06604 (opens Google Maps) · Greater Bridgeport County · (203) 365-6400· 294 certified beds · avg 285 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 →

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 29, 2025
5
Serious findings on record
most recent Mar 5, 2025
$58,260
Fines, last 3 years
4.50
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Apr 10, 2024 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.

Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.

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.

Corrected: May 6, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Sep 29, 2023 · 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 (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.

Corrected: Sep 29, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 5, 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: Mar 19, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 15, 2023 · 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 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 19, 2023 · F-0726

The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.

Why it matters: Undertrained caregivers are more likely to miss warning signs and make care mistakes.

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 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 46 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  2. 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. · from a complaint F-0609

  3. 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. · from a complaint F-0610

View all 46 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
May 20, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint · F-0604
May 20, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609
May 20, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0610
Sep 29, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2025B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe 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). · F-0628
May 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Mar 5, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 28, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 10, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Apr 10, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0600
Dec 6, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 15, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 15, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 19, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Oct 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Oct 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0756
Oct 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 19, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883
Sep 29, 2023▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe 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 29, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609
Sep 29, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0610
Sep 29, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · from a complaint · F-0712
Sep 29, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0600
Sep 29, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 29, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · from a complaint · F-0699
Sep 29, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint · F-0745
Sep 29, 2023B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe 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 9, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 9, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Nov 9, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Nov 9, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 13).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 20
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2024
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202140D
2023203J ▲
202441J ▲
2025151G ▲
202630D

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

5 fines totaling $58,260.

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.

DateTypeAmount / length
Mar 5, 2025Fine$12,438
Feb 7, 2024Fine$15,642
Oct 19, 2023Fine$10,059
Oct 19, 2023Fine$10,059
Sep 29, 2023Fine$10,062

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityConnecticut averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.50
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.61
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.19
Connecticut average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityConnecticut avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.503.803.95top 18% in Connecticut; top 23% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.610.700.69top 49% in Connecticut; top 47% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.193.433.50top 15% in Connecticut; top 18% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.400.460.48top 49% in Connecticut; top 48% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)24.337.445.8top 12% in Connecticut; top 6% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)12.238.642.9top 7% in Connecticut; top 5% 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 4.61, RN 0.62, weekend 4.29.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.61 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · 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 Mozaic Senior Life. 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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Jewish Home for the Elderly of Fairfield County IncorporatedOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/1973
August, JonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2024
Banoff, AndrewIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2003
Banoff, AndrewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2003
Banoff, AndrewIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/30/2025
Condon, LawrenceIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/17/2013
Luterman, GeraldIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2024
Mercer, SherryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/15/2019
Meshberg, EmilIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2024
Ostroff, AllisonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/02/2023
Ostroff, AllisonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/30/2025
People's United BankOrganization5% or Greater Mortgage InterestNOT APPLICABLE04/29/2014
Peterson, EvangelynIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2010
Robinson, SheilaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/12/2012
Rodriguez, KaraIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/10/2022
Sliby, RogerIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLENO DATE PROVIDED
Zicari, ElizabethIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/13/2019

All 17 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"
  • "What is your policy on physical restraints, and what alternatives do you try first?"
  • "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
  • "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
  • "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
  • "Walk me through what happens when a resident or family files a grievance — who responds and how fast?"

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 24% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 17 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 50 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Ludlowe Center for Health & Rehabilitation1.0 miFairfield, CT★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Springs at 3030 Park, the1.2 miBridgeport, CT★★★★★5/5
Cambridge Health and Rehabilitation Center1.3 miFairfield, CT★★★☆☆4/5
Civita Care Northbridge1.7 miBridgeport, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Maefair Center for Health & Rehabilitation2.6 miTrumbull, CT★★★☆☆3/5
Carolton Chronic & Convalescent Hospital INC4.9 miFairfield, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5
Southport Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC5.5 miSouthport, CT★★☆☆☆2/5
Lord Chamberlain Nursing & Rehabilitation Center7.2 miStratford, CT★★☆☆☆2/5
Lord Chamberlain Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Ce7.2 miStratford, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5
Masonicare at Bishop Wicke Health & Rehabilitation8.5 miShelton, CT★★★☆☆3/5
Civita Care Center at Milford8.6 miMilford, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Gardner Heights Health Care Center, INC8.7 miShelton, CT★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Greater Bridgeport, CT — 15 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.

All facilities in Bridgeport →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075353.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details