How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Shady Knoll Center for Health & Rehabilitation
41 Skokorat Street, Seymour, CT 06483 (opens Google Maps) · Naugatuck Vly County · (203) 881-2555· 128 certified beds · avg 120 residents/day · certified since Jun 9, 1993 · 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: NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES (42 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 30, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.18
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 48 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 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. · from a complaint F-0761
The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. F-0851
View all 48 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 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 |
| Jul 21, 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. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0756 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Jun 30, 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 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0677 |
| Jun 30, 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 30, 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 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| Jun 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 17, 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 |
| Jun 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · from a complaint · F-0698 |
| Jun 17, 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 |
| Apr 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 |
| Apr 16, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint · F-0919 |
| Apr 16, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 18, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · F-0678 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| Oct 18, 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 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure care was delivered by qualified people following each resident's written care plan — the individualized document that spells out exactly what care that resident is supposed to receive. · F-0659 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0677 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 18, 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 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | When a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · from a complaint · F-0661 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Jul 28, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 28, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 28, 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 |
| Jul 28, 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 28, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Jul 28, 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 28, 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 28, 2021 | 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 |
| Jul 28, 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 28, 2021 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (15 → 13).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 6
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 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 17 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 15 | 0 | F |
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: 3.18
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.38
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.92
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) | 3.18 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 14% in Connecticut; bottom 21% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.38 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 9% in Connecticut; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.92 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 15% in Connecticut; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.26 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 20% in Connecticut; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 23.4 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 10% in Connecticut; top 5% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 47.1 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 34% in Connecticut; bottom 40% 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 3.38, RN 0.41, weekend 3.10.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.38 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Shady Knoll Center for Health & Rehabilitation. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BG II Opco ML LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 10/10/2024 |
| Cedar Hill Capital Associates LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| David Ostreicher Family Trust | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Dymer Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Ehrenfeld, Jacob | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Ehrenfeld, Mindy | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Ej Capital Holdings LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Gelbtuch, Jay | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| GM Equities LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Gray Family Investors LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Ilana Ostreicher Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Juniper Capital Associates LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Levon Papa II LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Lopiansky, Rebecca | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| LPKLR LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Marc Ephram Ostreicher Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Michelle Ostreicher Family Trust | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Millstein, Nechama | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
| Oak Management Capital LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2024 |
| Ostreicher, David | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2024 |
Showing 20 of 67 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 47 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain National Health Care Associates — 42 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.
- Sharon Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Sharon, CT · overall 4/5
- Stone Bridge Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Newtown, CT · overall 4/5
- Summit at Plantsville Center for Health & Rehabili — Plantsville, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Village Crest Center for Health & Rehabilitation — New Milford, CT · overall 4/5
- Water's Edge Center for Health & Rehabilitation — Middletown, CT · overall 3/5abuse
- Reservoir Center for Health & Rehabilitation, the — Marlborough, MA · overall 3/5
- Augusta Center for Health & Rehabilitation, LLC — Augusta, ME · overall 3/5
- Brentwood Center for Health & Rehabilitation, LLC — Yarmouth, ME · overall 1/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 41 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.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Connecticut midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 23% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 67 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 65 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete Care at Glendale | 4.9 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Beacon Brook Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 4.9 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at the Willows | 5.6 mi | Woodbridge, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Hewitt Health & Rehabilitation Center, INC | 6.4 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Shelton Lakes | 6.7 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Hamden Rehabilitation & Healthcare Center | 7.0 mi | Hamden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Arden Care Center | 7.2 mi | Hamden, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Whitney Center | 8.0 mi | Hamden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Gardner Heights Health Care Center, INC | 8.2 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Whitney Rehabilitation Care Center | 8.2 mi | Hamden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Masonicare at Bishop Wicke Health & Rehabilitation | 8.5 mi | Shelton, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Grimes Center | 8.7 mi | New Haven, 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
- Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC — Waterbury, CT · overall 5/5
- Apple Rehab Watertown — Watertown, CT · overall 4/5
- Autumn Lake Healthcare at Bucks Hill — Waterbury, CT · overall 4/5
- Cheshire House Health Care Facility & Rehab Center — Waterbury, CT · overall 2/5
- Civita Care Sheriden Woods — Bristol, CT · overall 1/5abuse
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 075386.