Complete Care At Groton Regency

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

63.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 126 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 78.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 100 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 34% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 162 beds and averages 121.5 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 40 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.54 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.11 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.69 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.62 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-29 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
  Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, review of facility documentation and interviews for two of three nursing units (C/D and E/F), the facility failed to ensure resident areas were kept in good repair. The findings include:Observations on all days of the survey, 1/21/26, 1/22/26, 1/27/26, 1/28/26 and 1/29/26 identified that many of the resident rooms on the C/D and E/F nursing units were noted with following:The frames of the drop ceilings contained an excessive amount of what appeared to be rust stains. The wallpaper and wallpaper borders at the top of the walls appeared discolored, ripped and/or hanging off the wall.Ceiling tiles that were bowed, bulged, or broken.Cove base molding that was not adhered to the wall and with dirt, debris or black growth observed behind the moldingThe thresholds to some resident rooms were missing.Chipped flooring tiles A tour of the nursing units with the Regional Maintenance Director on 1/28/26 and 1/29/26 identified that he wrote the specific rooms and areas where the environmental concerns were noted. Interview with the Regional Maintenance Director on 1/21/26…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-29 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of six sampled residents (Residents #98) reviewed for resident-to-resident abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from abuse. The findings include:Resident #15's diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, pseudobulbar affect, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #15 was cognitively intact, had hallucinations, and delusions, exhibited verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others and other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others. The assessment further identified Resident #15 required moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, lower body dressing, clean-up assistance with personal hygiene, was non-ambulatory and independently utilize a manual wheelchair. The care plan dated 2/19/25 identified Resident #15 exhibited or had the potential to demonstrate verbal behaviors related to cognitive…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #4 and Resident #73) reviewed for involuntary seclusion, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised to reflect each resident's changing goals, preferences and needs of the resident including placement and continued placement on a secured unit. The findings included:Review of resident roster for the E/F secured nursing unit on 1/21/26 at 11:00 AM identified Resident #4 resided on the secured unit.Review of the clinical record on 1/22/26 identified a consent form for the secured unit (E/F) that identified Resident #4 had dementia and was a wandering risk and would only be allowed to leave the unit with supervision. The form identified that verbal consent was obtained from Resident #4's responsible party on 10/30/25 and was signed by facility staff.The physician's orders dated 1/26/26 directed Resident #4…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, review of clinical records, review of facility policy, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #23) reviewed for pressure ulcer/injury, the facility failed to appropriately track and place a resident with an open wound on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) to ensure the appropriate PPE was utilized when providing wound care. The findings include:Resident #23's diagnoses included vascular dementia, non-pressure chronic ulcer of skin of other sites with fat layer exposed, anxiety disorder.The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #23 had severely impaired cognition, was dependent on staff for bed mobility, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, transfers and was non-ambulatory. The assessment further identified Resident #23 had treatments for skin and ulcer/injury for pressure reducing device for chair and bed, application of non-surgical dressing other than to feet and applications of ointment/medications other than feet.The…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-29 · tag F0887 — isolated
  Educate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to ensure that the COVID-19 booster vaccination was offered or history assessed. The findings include:Resident #4's diagnoses included dementia, atrial fibrillation, and anxiety disorder. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had severely impaired cognition. The assessment further identified that Resident #4 was not up to date with the COVID-19 vaccination.Review of the COVID-19 Vaccine Administration and Consent Form with the Infection Preventionist (RN #1) in the presence of the Clinical Manager (RN #3) on 1/28/26 at 10:49 AM identified Resident #4 Power of Attorney (POA) gave the facility permission on 10/20/25 to administer the COVID-19 vaccine and boosters. Further review of Resident #4 physician's orders, preventative health care report and progress notes with RN #1 and RN…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-14 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, interviews, facility documentation and policies for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights, the facility failed to ensure the resident was treated with respect during medication administration. The findings included:Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in October of 2025 with diagnoses which included congestive heart disease, anxiety, and Type 2 diabetes mellitus.Review of the Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation, was verbally appropriate, and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, bed mobility, and transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/25/25 identified Resident #1 required assistance/was dependent for activities of daily living which included bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and toileting related to a recent hospitalization which resulted in fatigue, activity…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2025-11-14 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
  Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of clinical records, interviews, facility documentation and policies for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the resident was not left unattended with administered medications. The findings included:Resident #1 was admitted to the facility in October of 2025 with diagnoses which included congestive heart disease, anxiety, and Type 2 diabetes mellitus.Review of the Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation, was verbally appropriate, and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene, bed mobility, and transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/25/25 identified Resident #1 required assistance/was dependent for activities of daily living which included bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and toileting related to a recent hospitalization which resulted in fatigue, activity…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to transport the resident to an orthopedic appointment per physician's order and failed to complete a fall risk assessment after a fall in accordance with facility policy. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included repeated falls, right humerus fracture (a bone in the upper arm running from the shoulder to the elbow), bone density disorder, anxiety disorder and dementia with behavioral disturbances. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 5/31/24 identified that Resident #1 is at risk for falls due to cognitive loss, lack of safety awareness and advanced Alzheimer's disease and had a history of falls and seizure like activity with interventions included to follow-up with the orthopedist for the right humerus fracture. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 was severely cognitively…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to follow the plan of care to adequately supervise a resident who required assistance with ambulation resulting in falls. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included repeated falls, right humerus fracture (a bone in the upper arm running from the shoulder to the elbow), right femur fracture (bone in the upper leg, spanning from the hip to the knee), bone density disorder, anxiety disorder and dementia with behavioral disturbances. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 5/31/24 identified that Resident #1 is at risk for falls due to cognitive loss, lack of safety awareness and advanced Alzheimer's disease and had a history of falls and seizure like activity with interventions included to follow-up with the orthopedist for the right humerus fracture. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-29 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for two of four sampled residents (Residents #1 and #2) who were reviewed for an allegation of resident-to-resident physical altercation, the facility failed to maintain the safety of Resident #1 who sustained bruises around the right forearm, wrist, and hand when facility staff intervened during the altercation. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances, anxiety, abnormalities of gait, and history of stroke. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 rarely or never made decisions regarding tasks of daily life, was independent with dressing, transfers, and ambulation, and utilized a walker for mobility. The Resident Care Plan dated 2/16/24 identified Resident #1 exhibited verbal behaviors due to dementia, had anxiety, and was on an anticoagulant. Interventions directed to monitor medications, evaluate for trigger of verbal outbursts,…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to COMPLETE CARE — 85 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $2.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in CT