← Back to search results

CHAMBERLAIN HEALTH CARE INC

STRATFORD, CT · Greater Bridgeport County · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds

📍 7003 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614  ·  📞 (203) 375-5894

Medicare ID: 075412  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Sep 23, 2025

Overall Safety Score
59
out of 100
Fair
Component Scores
17
Inspection
100
Staffing
52
Enforcement
70
Complaints
50
Quality
📋 Last inspected: September 23, 2025 📦 CMS data as of: May 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
17
Staffing
100
Enforcement
52
Complaints
70
Quality Outcomes
50

What the numbers mean

CHAMBERLAIN HEALTH CARE INC scored 59 out of 100 — 5 points below the state average of 64.

📋 Inspections: 23 citations over the last 36 months — equal to the state average (23). 1 was rated serious (G+) — an inspector determined it caused or risked harm to a resident. 6 findings recurred across inspection cycles — indicating a problem that was not fixed.

👥 Staffing: Staffing levels are strong — RN hours and total nurse hours per resident are in the favorable range. Adequate staffing is one of the most important factors in resident safety.

⚠️ Penalties & enforcement: CMS has recorded 1 enforcement action totaling $14,069 against this facility. Penalties are only issued after a facility fails two levels of regulatory review — meaning this is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation. Ask for a written explanation of every fine and what corrective actions were taken.

💬 Complaints: Some complaint-driven inspections have occurred. These are unannounced visits triggered by formal concerns from residents, families, or staff. Ask the facility how they handle resident grievances.

⚠️ Resident quality outcomes: Some quality measures are below national benchmarks. Areas like fall prevention, pain management, or medication use may warrant closer attention.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

23
Total citations
State avg: 23.1
1
Serious (G+)
State avg: 1
6
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

23

⚖ Penalties & Enforcement

Federal civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are only issued after a facility has failed two levels of regulatory review — meaning problems were found on inspection and the facility could not rebut the findings. This is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation.

$14,069
Total federal fines
1
Enforcement action

⚠ Each enforcement action required CMS to make a separate non-compliance determination — meaning this facility failed two levels of regulatory review before any fine was issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective steps were taken.

📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
📊
Enforcement score: 52/100 — 18 points below the state average of 70/100 — worse than most comparable facilities. A score below 70 indicates a meaningful enforcement history that warrants direct conversation with facility management.
Serious Citations That May Have Triggered Enforcement
Medication error — no significant harm — Immediate danger · Sep 23, 2025

📅 Per-action enforcement records (date, fine amount, and penalty type for each individual action) are sourced from a separate CMS enforcement dataset and will be added in a future data update.

🩹

Resident Wellbeing — Key Indicators

These are the measures families ask about most. They come from CMS clinical assessments of every resident — not just inspection reports. Stars (★) count toward the official CMS quality star rating.

Re-hospitalized after discharge
34.0% lower is better
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. Risk-adjusted for resident health.
Hospitalization rate
6.2% lower is better
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year. Adjusted for how sick residents were.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures & Medicare claims data. Scores shown are the most recent 4-quarter averages for long-stay residents.

Track this facility with free email alerts

Get notified when new inspections, citations, score changes, or enforcement actions are published for this facility.

🟡
Overall Assessment — Use Caution  ·  59/100
This facility has mixed results. Some areas need a closer look before you decide.
What to do next: Proceed carefully. Ask management directly about the specific concerns listed in this report.
Federal Penalty: $14,069
CMS has imposed civil monetary penalties totaling $14,069 against this facility. Penalties are only levied after a separate non-compliance determination — meaning a facility must fail two levels of regulatory review before a fine is issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective actions were taken.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Inspection record is well below average. Multiple or serious deficiencies found.
👥 Staffing
Staffing levels are adequate — RN hours and nurse-to-resident ratios meet or exceed benchmarks.
⚖ Penalties
Facility has received federal fines or enforcement sanctions. Requires direct explanation from management.
💬 Complaints
Some complaint activity. Ask how the facility handles concerns raised by residents and families.
Multiple quality measures are below national benchmarks. Ask management directly about resident care practices.
⚠ Serious Findings on Record: 1 citation(s) where inspectors found actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents. See Section D for the full details and ask management how each was resolved.
Score breakdown — the numbers behind this assessment
👥 Staffing 100
What it measures RN hours per resident per day, total nurse hours, and RN turnover rate.
💡 Understaffing is the strongest single predictor of poor inspection outcomes.
📋 Inspection 17
What it measures Number, severity (A–L), and scope of deficiencies found. Repeat findings carry extra weight.
💡 Every citation in Section D feeds directly into this score.
⚖ Penalties 52
What it measures Whether CMS escalated from a deficiency citation to actual financial or operational sanctions.
💡 A penalty means the facility already failed a second level of regulatory review.
💬 Complaints 70
What it measures Volume of complaint-triggered inspections and the share that were substantiated.
💡 Complaint surveys are unannounced — they often surface issues annual surveys miss.
🎯 Quality outcomes 50
What it measures Resident outcome measures: falls, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic use, weight loss, hospitalizations.
💡 Reflects the lived experience of residents beyond what inspectors observe.

Each pillar scores 0–100 and is combined into the overall score. A strong overall can mask a weak pillar — compare all four and see how they stack against the state average in Section B.

🏗 How This Facility Compares to CT State Averages

Comparing a facility to others in the same state puts its score in context. A facility might have 8 citations and that could be above average in one state and below in another. Green means this facility is doing better than its peers; red means it's falling short.

Metric This facility CT avg vs. State
Overall score
The combined Senior Care Report Card score out of 100.
59 64 ▼ Worse than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
17 52 ▼ Worse than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
100 57 ▲ Better than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
52 70 ▼ Worse than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
70 85 ▼ Worse than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
50 61 ▼ Worse than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
23 23.1 ✓ At avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
1 1 ✓ At avg

📅 Inspection Timeline

State health inspectors visit nursing homes on a regular cycle — typically every 12 to 15 months — and document every deficiency they find. The timeline below shows the date and scale of each inspection visit over the past several years. A pattern of worsening surveys is a red flag even if the most recent visit looks clean.

2025-09-23
3 citations  (1 serious)
2025-08-27
1 citations
2025-06-11
1 citations
2025-04-03
1 citations
2025-01-23
1 citations
2024-10-25
13 citations
2024-03-27
3 citations
2022-07-08
10 citations
2019-11-27
3 citations

Bar length proportional to citation count. Red = serious findings (severity G+). Orange = elevated. Green = low.

📄 Full Citation Record

Every time state inspectors visit a nursing home, they write up anything that doesn’t meet federal standards. Each write-up is called a citation.

Each citation shows what the problem was and how serious it was, using a color-coded badge:

Green — No residents harmed Yellow — Risk of harm, no injury Orange — A resident was harmed Red — Life or safety in danger

A Repeat tag means the same problem appeared in a previous inspection — it was not fully corrected the first time. Citations shown cover the last two years.

Survey: 2025-09-23 3 citation(s) — 1 serious
F0760 Immediate danger
Medication error — no significant harm
F0657 No harm, could worsen
Care plan timing & review
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
Survey: 2025-08-27 1 citation(s)
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
Survey: 2025-06-11 1 citation(s)
F0580 No harm, could worsen
Notification of change in condition
Survey: 2025-04-03 1 citation(s)
F0580 No harm, could worsen
Notification of change in condition
Survey: 2025-01-23 1 citation(s)
F0626 No harm, could worsen
Discharge planning
Survey: 2024-10-25 13 citation(s)
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0695 No harm, could worsen
Respiratory care
F0803 No harm, could worsen
Nutritionally adequate menus
F0698 No harm, could worsen
F0698
F0558 No harm, could worsen
Reasonable accommodations
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
F0658 No harm, could worsen
Services meet professional standards
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
F0883 No harm, could worsen
Immunizations (flu & pneumonia)
F0656 No harm, could worsen
Comprehensive care plan
F0655 No harm, could worsen
Baseline care plan
F0758 No harm, could worsen
Unnecessary psychotropic drugs
F0550 No harm, could worsen
Resident rights & dignity
🩹

How Are Residents Doing?

Inspections tell you whether a facility followed the rules. These measures tell you how residents actually fared — whether they fell, experienced pain, lost weight, or were over-medicated. CMS collects this data through regular clinical assessments that nurses complete for every resident. Unlike inspections, which happen once a year, these assessments happen continuously.

✓ Positive signal: Most star-rated quality measures for this facility are within a good range, suggesting residents\' day-to-day wellbeing compares favorably to typical nursing homes.

How to read these cards: Each card shows one measure. Lower percentages are better for most (e.g. fewer falls), but higher is better for vaccination rates and community return. ★ Star rating marks measures CMS uses in its official quality star rating.

Short Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Worsening depression symptoms
1.5% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents whose depression got measurably worse over the past year — despite being in a care facility.
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and a…
77.1% lower is better
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Emergency room visits (short-stay)
71.6% lower is better
Share of short-stay residents sent to the ER during their recovery stay. ER visits are disruptive for recovering patients and sometimes avoidable with better on-site clinical management.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures (2025Q1-2025Q4). Collected via standardized clinical assessments — not inspector visits.

🏥

Hospitalization & ER Visits

These numbers come directly from Medicare claims — real billing records of every time a resident was hospitalized or sent to the emergency room. They\'re among the most objective measures of care quality because they can\'t be influenced by how a facility writes up an assessment. The adjusted score is the most meaningful number — it\'s been corrected to account for how sick residents were, so a facility treating frailer patients isn\'t unfairly penalized.

What to look for: An adjusted score significantly above the expected score means this facility hospitalizes residents more often than peer facilities with similar patient populations — that gap is worth asking about directly.

Short Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Re-hospitalized after going home
34.0% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 33.8% Expected: 23.7%
▲ Higher than expected — worth asking about
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. A high rate suggests residents were discharged before they were ready, or that the facility didn't coordinate follow-up care well. Risk-adjusted so facilities treating sicker residents aren't unfairly penalized.
★ Star rating
Hospitalization rate (long-stay)
6.2% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 5.8% Expected: 10.5%
✓ Better than expected for similar residents
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year, adjusted for how ill they were. A high rate relative to expectations suggests the facility may be sending residents to the hospital for issues that skilled nursing staff should be able to manage on-site.

Source: CMS Medicare claims data. Scores are risk-adjusted — they account for how ill residents were when admitted so facilities treating sicker populations aren\'t penalized for it.

💬 Questions to Ask Before Touring

These questions are generated specifically from this facility's score profile and citation history — not a generic checklist. A facility's willingness to answer them openly, and the quality of their answers, is itself an important signal. Bring this list when you tour or call.

  1. Federal inspectors found 1 citation rated as causing actual harm or immediate jeopardy in the public record. Walk us through each incident: what happened, who was affected, and what specific policy or staffing changes have been put in place since?
  2. This facility has a significant CMS enforcement history. Can you identify each action in the past three years, what it was for, and what systemic — not just procedural — changes were made to prevent recurrence?
  3. How do you handle formal complaints from residents or families, and what is your typical time to resolution?
  4. Some resident outcome measures are below average here. What is your current approach to fall prevention, pain management, and quarterly medication review?
  5. 1 citation in the public record were rated as causing actual harm to a resident. Can you describe what occurred in each case and what specific safeguards are now in place?
  6. Can we speak privately with two or three current residents or their families?

👪 Family Decision Guide

This guide translates this facility's data into practical next steps for families. It is not a recommendation for or against placement — it is a structured framework for the conversations you need to have before making a decision.

✓ Positives to confirm

  • Staffing levels appear adequate — ask about weekend and night coverage
  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • Inspection score is low — ask for the most recent state survey results
  • Penalty history present — ask what enforcement actions occurred and outcomes
  • Serious-harm citations on record — require a written explanation of corrective action
  • Always speak with at least two current residents or family members independently

📈 Score History

The score is recalculated every time CMS releases updated data (typically monthly). A consistent downward trend is more concerning than a single low score. An improving trend after a period of poor performance may indicate management changes are taking effect. Your subscription will alert you whenever the score changes materially.

2026-05-07
59 — Fair

🏢 Ownership & Operators

Ownership matters because large corporate chains sometimes prioritize cost controls over care quality. CMS requires every nursing home to disclose its owners, operators, and managing employees. Frequent ownership changes can disrupt staffing and operations — which is why we flag facilities that changed ownership in the past 12 months.

🔗 SBRIGLIO, ROBERT operates 5 facilities across CT. A mid-size operator; compare scores across their other facilities if evaluating multiple options.
Owner / Operator Role Ownership % Effective
SBRIGLIO, ROBERT Individual 1970-01-01
SBRIGLIO, MARTIN Individual 1970-01-01

🔔 Monthly tracking is now free

We check CMS data monthly. Use the tracking form above and we will email you when new citations appear, scores change, or enforcement actions are added.

📋
Monthly report update
New citation alerts
📈
Score trend tracking
🏠 Verify this data on Medicare.gov
All data in this report comes from the CMS Care Compare database. You can review the official public record directly on Medicare.gov — including the full inspection narrative, star ratings, and any recent enforcement actions.
View on Medicare.gov ↗

This report reflects publicly available CMS data only and is updated monthly. Severity codes and narratives are reproduced directly from the CMS health inspection database. Senior Care Report Card scores are independently computed and are not affiliated with or endorsed by CMS or Medicare.gov.

Data source: CMS Care Compare · Methodology · State Ombudsman

This report uses public CMS nursing home data and simplified scoring to help families ask better questions. It is not a recommendation, ranking, medical opinion, legal opinion, or substitute for an in-person visit. Source data last published by CMS: May 3, 2026.