How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Ridge Crest at Meadow Ridge
100 Redding Road, West Redding, CT 06896 (opens Google Maps) · Greater Bridgeport County · (203) 544-1000· 59 certified beds · avg 52 residents/day · certified since Nov 26, 2002 · Medicare only — not Medicaid certified
Certified for Medicare only. Medicare pays for short rehabilitation stays, not for long-term care — and this facility cannot bill Medicaid, which is what most families rely on for a long stay. Ask what a long-term stay here would cost and how it would be paid for. Who pays for nursing home care →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 24, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.54
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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 18 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint F-0583
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
The 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
View all 18 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 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583 |
| May 7, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 1, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Mar 24, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 24, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Mar 24, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Mar 24, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Mar 24, 2025 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Nov 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Oct 16, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 16, 2024 | 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, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · F-0947 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 27, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · F-0825 |
| Feb 13, 2020 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (6 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 3 | 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: 4.54
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.16
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.20
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) | 4.54 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 18% in Connecticut; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.16 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 10% in Connecticut; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.20 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 15% in Connecticut; top 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.86 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 7% in Connecticut; top 9% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 27.9 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 22% in Connecticut; top 11% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 21.1 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 19% in Connecticut; top 16% 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 4.93, RN 1.26, weekend 4.56.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.93 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: 5/5 · 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 Ridge Crest at Meadow Ridge. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BSL Investors Fund III LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 15% | 12/10/2020 |
| BSL Meadow Ridge Investors LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 15% | 12/10/2020 |
| David Reis Family Trust No. 1a | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 11% | 01/06/2023 |
| David Reis Family Trust No. 3 | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 19% | 07/01/2016 |
| Georgetown Meadows LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 6% | 08/22/1995 |
| Mehlman, Brett | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/07/2024 |
| Priest, Donald | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 12/15/1994 |
| Reis, David | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 19% | 12/15/1994 |
| Barstein, Christopher | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2021 |
| Barstein, Christopher | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2021 |
| Beers, Hamerman, Cohen & Burger, PC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/22/2025 |
| Benchmark Senior Living LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2021 |
| Benchmark Senior Living LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2021 |
| Brown, Paul | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/04/2024 |
| Brown, Paul | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/04/2024 |
| Brown, Paul | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/19/2025 |
| BSL Investors Fund III LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/10/2020 |
| BSL Meadow Ridge Investors LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/10/2020 |
| Catizone, Heather | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2025 |
| Catizone, Heather | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2025 |
Showing 20 of 38 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 18 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 protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
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 28% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 38 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 42 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wilton Meadows Health Care Center | 4.1 mi | Wilton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Laurel Ridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 4.9 mi | Ridgefield, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Norwalk | 8.3 mi | Norwalk, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Saint John Paul II Center | 8.5 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Notre Dame Health and Rehabilitation Center | 9.0 mi | Norwalk, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Havencare at Hancock Hall | 9.4 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Havencare at Filosa | 9.6 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Danbury | 9.7 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Ludlowe Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 9.8 mi | Fairfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Waveny Care Center | 9.9 mi | New Canaan, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Norwalk Care Center | 10.3 mi | Norwalk, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Glen Hill | 10.5 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
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.
- Southport Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC — Southport, CT · overall 2/5
- Springs at 3030 Park, the — Bridgeport, CT · overall 5/5
- Apple Rehab Shelton Lakes — Shelton, CT · overall 2/5
- Cambridge Health and Rehabilitation Center — Fairfield, CT · overall 3/5
- Carolton Chronic & Convalescent Hospital INC — Fairfield, CT · overall 1/5
- Civita Care Northbridge — Bridgeport, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Gardner Heights Health Care Center, INC — Shelton, CT · overall 2/5
- Hewitt Health & Rehabilitation Center, INC — Shelton, CT · overall 2/5
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 075429.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).