LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Ludlowe Center for Health & Rehabilitation in Fairfield, Connecticut has received a Trust Grade of B, which means it is considered a good option for families, though there are some areas for improvement. It ranks #24 out of 192 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and it is the best option among 15 facilities in the Greater Bridgeport County area. However, the facility is worsening in terms of issues, with complaints doubling from 4 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a strength here, with a turnover rate of 22%, significantly lower than the state average, but the overall staffing rating is average at 3 out of 5 stars. On the downside, the facility has faced specific incidents, such as a resident suffering a fracture due to inadequate supervision and another resident sustaining a laceration during a transfer because proper assistance was not provided. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing stability, the increase in reported issues and some serious incidents raise concerns for potential residents and their families.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Connecticut
- #24/192
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 22% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 26 points below Connecticut's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $8,824 in fines. Higher than 58% of Connecticut facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 45 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Connecticut. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (22%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (22%)
26 points below Connecticut average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Sept 2025
8 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interview, for the resident (Resident #12) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 of 4 residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the only resident (Resident #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0627
(Tag F0627)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #154) reviewed for discharge, the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #102)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for the only resident (Resident #1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 4 resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #4...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for three of three residents (Residents #1, #2, and #4) rev...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, facility documentation, and interviews, for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for inc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for incontinent care (Resident #2...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record and interviews for 2 (#39 and #68)of 4 residents reviewed for PASSR ,the facility failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #239) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to perform weekly weights for a newly admitted...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, facility policy review and interviews for 2 of 4 medication carts(Passport and second floor units) reviewed for medication storage and labeling, the facility failed to discard d...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
1 deficiency
MINOR
(B)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2021
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, review of facility documentation and interviews regarding the storage of the facility's emergency medication box (e-box), the facility failed to ensure the emergency medications ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, facility documentation and facility policy the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate less than 5%. The findings include:
1. Resident #483's diagnosis i...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 22% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 26 points below Connecticut's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Connecticut, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation Staffed?
CMS rates LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 22%, compared to the Connecticut average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 16 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation?
LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 144 certified beds and approximately 134 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in FAIRFIELD, Connecticut.
How Does Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation Compare to Other Connecticut Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Connecticut, LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (22%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Connecticut. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation Stick Around?
Staff at LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 22%, the facility is 24 percentage points below the Connecticut average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.
Was Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation Ever Fined?
LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION has been fined $8,824 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Connecticut average of $33,167. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Ludlowe Center For Health & Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?
LUDLOWE CENTER FOR HEALTH & REHABILITATION is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.