How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Suffield House Rehabilitation and Healthcare Cente
1 Canal Road, Suffield, CT 06078 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 668-6111· 128 certified beds · avg 122 residents/day · certified since Jun 21, 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 →
Part of chain: ATLAS HEALTHCARE (29 facilities, chain avg rating 3.6★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 9, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 5, 2026
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.51
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: 4/5 · 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)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 5, 2026 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 5, 2026 · 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: Jul 17, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
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 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 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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual 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 23, 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 |
| Nov 14, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| Jan 9, 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 |
| Jan 9, 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Oct 10, 2024 | 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 |
| Jun 6, 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 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Jul 19, 2022 | 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 19, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Jul 19, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2019 | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2019 | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2019 | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2019 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 7 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 1 | 1 | G ▲ |
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: 3.51
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.41
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.32
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) | 3.51 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 38% in Connecticut; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.41 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 12% in Connecticut; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.32 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 50% in Connecticut; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.25 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 17% in Connecticut; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 37.9 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 45% in Connecticut; top 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 21.4 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 21% 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 3.73, RN 0.43, weekend 3.52.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.73 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Suffield House Rehabilitation and Healthcare Cente. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HB Suffield Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 8% | 05/01/2024 |
| LS Suffield Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 8% | 05/01/2024 |
| SG Suffield Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 8% | 05/01/2024 |
| Suffield SNF Operations Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 05/01/2024 |
| Gottlieb, Moshe | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2024 |
| Parikh, Dushyant | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2024 |
| Riccio, Carrie | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2024 |
All 7 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 Atlas Healthcare — 29 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.
- Vernon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Vernon, CT · overall 5/5
- Village Green Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Bristol, CT · overall 2/5
- Hathorne Hill Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Danvers, MA · overall 4/5
- Haverhill Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Haverhill, MA · overall 2/5
- Masconomet Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Topsfield, MA · overall 3/5
- Nemasket Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Middleborough, MA · overall 3/5
- Oak Knoll Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Framingham, MA · overall 3/5
- Port Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Newburyport, MA · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 28 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.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "What choices do residents have over their daily schedule, like meal times, bathing, and activities?"
- "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
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 38% 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 63 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parkway Pavilion Health and Rehabilitation Center | 1.0 mi | Enfield, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| St Joseph's Residence | 1.4 mi | Enfield, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Touchpoints at Chestnut | 4.2 mi | East Windsor, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bickford Health Care Center | 4.2 mi | Windsor Locks, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Fresh River Healthcare | 4.2 mi | East Windsor, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Care One at Redstone | 6.1 mi | East Longmeadow, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Julian J Levitt Family Nursing Home | 6.2 mi | Longmeadow, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Agawam East Rehab and Nursing | 6.5 mi | Agawam, MA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| East Longmeadow Skilled Nursing Center | 6.5 mi | East Longmeadow, MA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Agawam West Rehab and Nursing | 6.6 mi | Agawam, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Agawam North Rehab and Nursing | 6.6 mi | Agawam, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Agawam South Rehab and Nursing | 6.7 mi | Agawam, MA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Capitol, CT — 65 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Summit at Plantsville Center for Health & Rehabili — Plantsville, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Touchpoints at Bloomfield — Bloomfield, CT · overall 4/5
- Touchpoints at Manchester — Manchester, CT · overall 4/5
- Trinity Hill Care Center — Hartford, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Vanderman Place — Willimantic, CT · overall 3/5
- Vernon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Vernon, CT · overall 5/5
- West Hartford Health & Rehabilitation Center — West Hartford, CT · overall 5/5
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 075347.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).