Norwich Sub-Acute And Nursing

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.

54.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 199 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 39.4% 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 94 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 52% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 29% 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 120 beds and averages 102.9 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.33 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.93 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 3.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.45 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.78 to 0.48 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% 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.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

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.

23 citations, most serious first. The 14 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited beforedisputed · IDR2026-06-04 · 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/policies, and interviews, for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who required assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), the facility failed to ensure safe bed level care for a cognitively impaired resident who required the assistance of two staff for bed mobility. Specifically, staff performed a one person turn using an unsafe technique, which resulted in the resident sliding from the bed and sustaining an acute fracture of the right tibia. The findings include:Resident #1's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, and anxiety.The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0), was impaired on the lower extremity on one side, required maximum assistance with all care, and was dependent on staff for transfers.The Resident Care Plan dated 4/24/26 identified Resident #1 had a self-care…

  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
• Actual harm · Gcited before2025-10-15 · 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 clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for a resident identified at risk for falls, to prevent a fall with injury. The failure resulted in a resident fall with laceration that required seven (7) stitches. The findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, anxiety, generalized muscle weakness, and depression. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 that indicated severe cognitive impairment, and required staff assistance for transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 7/11/2025 identified Resident #1 was at risk for falls due to confusion, deconditioning and gait/balance problems. Interventions directed assistance of two (2) staff for turning and repositioning, beveled edge…

  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
• Actual harm · Gcited before2025-07-30 · 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 clinical record review, facility documentation review, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the resident was transferred in accordance with physician orders and the plan of care to prevent a fall with injury. The failure resulted in an acute mildly displaced fracture of the distal aspect of the fibula. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included deep vein thrombosis (blood clot) of the left lower extremity and anxiety. Physician orders dated 6/6/2025 directed mobility status was an assist of two persons with rolling walker, stand pivot only for transfers, and ambulation with therapy only. Nursing admission note dated 6/6/2025 identified Resident #1 was alert and oriented. The Resident Care Plan dated 6/9/2025 identified Resident #1 required assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Interventions directed to transfer and ambulate per physician orders. The Nurse Aide (NA) Care Card dated 7/7/2025 directed to provide…

  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
• Actual harm · Gcited beforedisputed · IIDR2025-06-09 · 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 ensure the resident was supervised outside of the facility leading to a fall with injury. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), anxiety disorder and personality disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 13), required substantial assistance for bed mobility and was dependent on staff for transfers. Review of the Morse Fall Scale Evaluation dated 4/24/25 identified Resident #1 had a history of falls, was observed with a weak gait (difficulty walking) and overestimates or forgets his/her limits, putting Resident #1 at a high risk for falling. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated…

  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 · D2025-06-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  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 #4) reviewed for elopement, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed for a resident who was at risk for elopement and had a provider ordered Wanderguard (a bracelet which is a part of a wander management system designed to prevent those at risk for wandering from leaving a protected area). The findings include: Resident #4's diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances and adjustment disorder with anxiety. A physician's order dated 5/30/24 directed a Wanderguard be affixed to Resident #4's wheelchair at all times. An Elopement Evaluation dated 12/11/24 identified Resident #4 was exit seeking, oblivious to needs or safety, wanted to go home or leave, had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (a progressive dementia that destroys memory and important mental functions) and was at risk for elopement. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS)…

  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 · D2025-06-09 · 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 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 ensure that a laceration sustained from a fall was treated in accordance with physician's orders. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), anxiety disorder and personality disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 13), required substantial assistance for bed mobility and was dependent on staff for transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 5/29/25 identified that Resident #1 had an actual impairment to skin integrity of the face and forehead related to an abrasion and a laceration sustained from a fall. Interventions included following facility protocols for treatment of an injury…

  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 · D2024-05-17 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
  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 review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to provide ensure a resident with difficulty swallowing was served the correct diet consistency in accordance with physician orders. The findings include: Resident #1 was admitted with diagnoses that included myoneural disorder (progressive muscle weakness), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), dementia, and aphasia. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1was alert and oriented, and independent for eating. A RCP dated 4/18/2024 identified a problem with nutritional status and that Resident #1 was on a mechanically altered diet and wore dentures. The RCP directed diet as per physician's order, adjust texture as needed to facilitate eating. A physician order dated 4/2/2024 directed International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) 5 minced and moist solids; allow crustless soft sandwiches…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · E2023-03-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  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 facility policy, and staff interviews, during a tour of the kitchen, the facility failed to store food according to professional standards. The findings include: Observation in the Dietary Department with the Food Service Manager on 3/15/23 at 9:50 AM identified the following items found in the walk- in refrigerator: 1.French dressing 1 Gal- noted to be open and with a received date of 9/15/22. The container lacked opened and expiration dates. 2. [NAME] Italian 1 Gal- noted to be open with approximately 1/8th of the contents missing, and with a received date of 3/9/23. The container lacked opened and expiration dates. 3. Sweet Relish- noted to be open with 1/2 of the contents missing, and with a received date of 2/10/23. The container lacked opened and expiration dates. 4. Mayonnaise 1 Gal, noted to be open with 3/4 of the contents missing, and with a received date of 2/10/23. The container lacked opened and expiration dates. 5. Ken's Ranch 1 Gal, noted to be open with 3/4 of 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-03-22 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
  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, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 1 resident (Resident #447) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to ascertain and implement the resident's choice related to showering. The findings include: Resident #447 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included fibromyalgia, atrial fibrillation, and stress incontinence. The care plan dated 3/6/23 identified that Resident #447 needed assistance with activities of daily living due to weakness and deconditioning. Interventions included encouraging the resident to do as much as he/she can for him/herself. The physician's orders dated 3/7/23 directed to provide Resident #447 a shower and weekly body audit every Sunday on the 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM shift. The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #447 had intact cognition and felt it was very important to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath while at the facility. Interview with Resident #447 on 3/15/23 at…

  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 before2023-03-22 · 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 1 resident (Resident #29) reviewed for hospitalization and anticoagulant use, the facility failed to complete an admission assessment upon the resident's return from the hospital and failed to ensure the physician order was followed related to the administration of an anticoagulant medication, and for 1 resident (Resident #447) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to ensure that weekly body audits were completed per facility policy. The findings include: 1. Resident # 29's diagnoses included a cerebral infarction, pathological dislocation of the right shoulder and pneumonia. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #29 had moderate cognitive impairment, required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, ambulation, locomotion, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/2/23 identified Resident #29 had an ADL (activities of daily living)…

  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 · D2023-03-22 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  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 review, observations, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #25) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure that the low air loss mattress (LAL) was at the correct setting per physician orders on multiple observations. The findings include: Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cellulitis of the right lower limb, a terminal illness and chronic venous hypertension (idiopathic) with ulcers of bilateral lower extremities. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #25 was moderately cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance of one for bed mobility, dressing and hygiene. Additionally, the MDS identified Resident #25 required extensive assistance of one for toilet use, supervision of 1 with ambulation and was independent after being setup for eating. Nurse's notes dated 1/23/23 at 3:40 PM identified Resident #25 complained of difficulty…

  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 · D2023-03-22 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — isolated
  Provide appropriate foot care.
  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 review, observations, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #25) reviewed for podiatry services, the facility failed to provide foot care for a resident with long toenails. The findings include: Resident #25 was admitted to the facility as a short term stay (rehabilitation) resident on 1/7/23 with diagnoses that included cellulitis of the right lower limb, a terminal illness and chronic venous hypertension (idiopathic) with ulcers of bilateral lower extremities. admission nurses notes dated 1/7/23 at 5:15 PM identified Resident #25 was observed to have thick, overgrown, and yellow toenails. The Resident Care Plan dated 1/7/23 identified a problem with impaired mobility related to weakness and deconditioning status post hospitalization for cellulitis of the lower extremities. Interventions included to continue with therapy, provide positive feedback, assist with toilet use, and encourage frequent position changes. A Consent for Services document…

  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 · D2023-03-22 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolated
  Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on a tour of the environment, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the area outside of the East Wing was free of cigarette butts and failed to ensure the staircase landing and steps to the basement were clean. The findings include: Observations of the rear parking lot from the East Wing exit on 3/15/23 at 10:15 AM identified the grounds near the exit door were littered with cigarette butts and an empty cigarette pack. There was a smoking receptacle in the vicinity and signage which directed no smoking. Observation of the basement steps (located outside the Dietary hallway) and staircase landing on 3/15/23 at 10:20 AM and on 3/15/23 at 12:55 with the Administrator identified a large amount of debris, dust, black particles, and grime. Interview with the Directory of Dietary on 3/15/23 at 10:17 AM identified that some facility staff members, not residents, would smoke in the area outside of the East Wing exit. He also indicated that the Director of Maintenance would be responsible to oversee the upkeep of both the staff smoking area and the basement…

  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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2020-02-21 · tag F0554 — isolated
  Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
  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, clinical record review, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medication administration (Resident #62), the facility failed to assess Resident #62 for self-administration of medications prior to allowing Resident #62 to self-administer medication. The findings include: Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary fibrosis, dementia and general weakness. Physician's orders dated 7/23/18 (and currently in effect) directed to administer Anoro Ellipta Blister Device (a respiratory metered dose inhaler) 62.5-25 micrograms (mcg), 1 puff inhalation once a day. Physician's orders dated 7/5/19 (and currently in effect) directed to administer Saline Nasal Mist Aerosol Spray 0.65%, two sprays each nostril three times a day. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #62 was moderately cognitively impaired and required supervision with…

  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

“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.

“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.

Fines & penalties

$47,483 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

• $15,106 — penalty dated 2025-10-15
• $32,377 — penalty dated 2025-06-09

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner 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 $3.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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