How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
River Glen Health Care Center
162 South Britain Rd, Southbury, CT 06488 (opens Google Maps) · Naugatuck Vly County · (203) 264-9600· 120 certified beds · avg 111 residents/day · certified since Mar 31, 1974 · 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 →
Part of chain: CAREONE (37 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 15, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.91
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 27 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. F-0554
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. F-0578
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
View all 27 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 15, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0554 |
| Aug 15, 2025 | 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. · F-0578 |
| Aug 15, 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 |
| Aug 15, 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 |
| Aug 15, 2025 | 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 15, 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 |
| Aug 15, 2025 | 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 15, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 15, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Aug 15, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0600 |
| Jul 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0603 |
| Jul 7, 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Jul 7, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 31, 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Dec 22, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0644 |
| Dec 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0759 |
| Dec 22, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough staff with the right skills to meet the mental and behavioral health needs of its residents, such as those living with dementia or depression. · F-0741 |
| Aug 31, 2021 | 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 |
| Aug 31, 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 |
| Aug 31, 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 31, 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 |
| Aug 31, 2021 | 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 |
| Aug 31, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit. · F-0711 |
| Aug 31, 2021 | 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. · F-0842 |
| Aug 31, 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 increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 15
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 | 8 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 15 | 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: 3.91
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.84
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.45
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) | 3.91 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 33% in Connecticut; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.84 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 25% in Connecticut; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.45 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 37% in Connecticut; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.48 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 35% in Connecticut; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.6 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 40% in Connecticut; top 35% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 36% in Connecticut; top 33% 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 3.71, RN 0.79, weekend 3.28.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.71 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: 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 River Glen Health Care Center. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Care Holdings, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 04/30/2002 |
| Care Realty, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 04/30/2002 |
| Des-C 2009 Grat | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 06/30/2017 |
| Straus, Daniel | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 04/30/2002 |
| Thci Company, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 04/30/2002 |
| Thci Holding Company, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 04/30/2002 |
| Baruch, David | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2021 |
| Baruch, David | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2021 |
| Healthbridge Management LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/28/2003 |
All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Careone — 37 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Care One at Brookline — Brookline, MA · overall 2/5
- Care One at Concord — W Concord, MA · overall 4/5
- Care One at Essex Park — Beverly, MA · overall 4/5
- Care One at Holyoke — Holyoke, MA · overall 5/5
- Care One at Lexington — Lexington, MA · overall 3/5
- Care One at Lowell — Lowell, MA · overall 3/5
- Care One at Millbury — Millbury, MA · overall 1/5
- Care One at New Bedford — New Bedford, MA · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 36 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "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?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
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 40% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 51 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pomperaug Woods Health Center | 2.0 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Lutheran Home of Southbury INC | 3.3 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Stone Bridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 5.7 mi | Newtown, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Middlebury | 8.3 mi | Middlebury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Bethel Health Care Center | 8.8 mi | Bethel, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Shady Knoll Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 10.3 mi | Seymour, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Complete Care at Glendale | 10.5 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Beacon Brook Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 10.7 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Watertown | 10.8 mi | Watertown, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Danbury | 11.3 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Glen Hill | 11.4 mi | Danbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC | 11.4 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
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.
- Skyview Rehab and Nursing — Wallingford, CT · overall 3/5
- Village Green Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Bristol, CT · overall 2/5
- Autumn Lake Healthcare at Bucks Hill — Waterbury, CT · overall 4/5
- Cheshire House Health Care Facility & Rehab Center — Waterbury, 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 075241.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).