Colonial Health & Rehab Center Of Plainfield, LLC

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.

49.1% 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 113 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 76.2% 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 63 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 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 65% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 90 beds and averages 82.9 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 7 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 4.06 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.86 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.48 is at or above 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 3.71 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.20 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.99 to 0.54 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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.

25 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 12 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited beforedisputed · IDR2026-05-19 · 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 staff interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance during transfers. Specifically, staff failed to recognize and respond to signs of increasing transfer instability in the weeks prior to a fall; failed to recognize that Resident #1 was unable to bear weight at the initiation of a transfer and continued the transfer without seeking assistance; left Resident #1 unattended on the floor following a fall with a head strike; and transferred Resident #1 off the floor despite observable signs of significant pain. Resident #1 subsequently sustained an acute intertrochanteric fracture of the right proximal femur requiring surgical repair.Resident #1's diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbances, chronic pain syndrome, aphasia, generalized muscle weakness, right-sided hemiplegia, right-hand contracture, and atrial…

  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 · Gdisputed · IDR2026-05-19 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
  Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and staff interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pain management, the facility failed to manage Resident #1's pain in accordance with facility policy and the resident's care plan. Specifically, licensed nurses failed to reassess pain within one (1) hour after administration of as-needed pain medication on multiple occasions; failed to recognize observable signs of significant pain during post-fall transfers as a change in condition requiring provider notification; and failed to administer pain medication in a timely manner following a fall that resulted in a major injury. Resident #1 subsequently sustained an acute intertrochanteric fracture of the right proximal femur requiring surgical repair.Resident #1's diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbances, chronic pain syndrome, aphasia, and generalized muscle weakness. The RCP dated 3/13/26 identified Resident #1 had chronic pain related to chronic pain syndrome and on 4/20/26 had pain and spasms to…

  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 before2025-10-23 · 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, facility documentation, and facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure resident was transferred safely to prevent an injury. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included dementia and osteoporosis. Physician order dated 9/8/2025 directed assist of two (2) with mechanical lift for transfers. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of fifteen, indicative of severe cognitive impairment and was dependent for transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 9/29/2025 identified Resident #1 had and alteration in mobility. Interventions directed transfer with assistance of two (2) with mechanical lift. Review of the Nurse Aide (NA) care card dated 10/3/2025 directed transfers with assist of two (2) with mechanical lift. Review of facility Reportable Event dated 10/4/2025 at 4:05 PM…

  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 · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · Ecited beforedisputed · IDR2026-06-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
  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 clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, for 3 residents (Resident #9, 1 and 50), the facility failed to administer medications and/or monitor blood sugar according to professional standards and physician's orders. For 1 resident (Resident #9) reviewed for medication errors, the facility failed to ensure staff followed the physician's order for Xanax (antianxiety medication) administration after a change in the dose. For 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure blood glucose monitoring was performed as prescribed by the provider. For 1 of 7 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for medications, the facility failed to hold the Metoprolol (a medication that lowers your blood pressure and heart rate) according to the physician's order, when the residents heart rate was below the identified parameters. The findings include: 1. Resident #9 was admitted in November 2018 with diagnoses that include dementia…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited beforedisputed · IDR2026-06-08 · 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 record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #19/victim and Resident #71/victim) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to protect Resident #19 from physical abuse by Resident #9/perpetrator, who had a history of pinching and for Resident #71 the facility failed to protect Resident #71 from physical abuse by Resident #68/perpetrator. The findings include: 1a. Resident #19's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder The admission MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #19 had intact cognition, and required partial to moderate assistance with transfers, toileting, and bed mobility. The care plan dated 8/26/25 identified Resident #19 had a potential for social isolation and depression. Interventions included to invite/encourage the resident to attend activities, provide monthly activity calendar, and assist the resident in developing a program of activities that was…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-26 · 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 review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure resident was free from mistreatment. The findings include: Resident #2's diagnoses included dementia with behavior disturbances, anxiety and depression. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified that Resident #2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five out of fifteen, indicative of severe cognitive impairment and was dependent for ADLs. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/10/2024 identified Resident #1 had a self-care performance deficit. Interventions directed two (2) staff for ADLs. Review of facility reportable event dated 11/16/2024 at 4:49 PM identified Resident #2 was alert and confused. Two NAs were providing care when NA #2 was scratched by Resident #2. The other NA reported NA #2 then grabbed Resident #2's arm and hit him/her on the chest with an open hand. When…

  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 · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  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 abuse, the facility failed to ensure staff reported an allegation of abuse timely. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included dementia, anxiety and depression. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of fifteen, indicative of severe cognitive impairment, required assistance with toilet use, ADLs, and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 9/27/2024 identified Resident #1 had impaired cognitive function/impaired though processes related to diagnosis of dementia and functional bladder incontinence. Interventions directed to provide incontinent care. The facility reportable event dated 11/11/2024 at 8:15 PM identified Resident #1 alleged a male NA (NA #1) touched him/her inappropriately during 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Potential for harm · E2024-11-08 · 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

  Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure foods were dated when opened and staff personal food/fluids were not stored in the facility walk-in refrigerator. The findings include: On 11/4/24 at 10:40 AM, a tour of the Dietary Department with the Food Service Director (FSD) identified the following: A. In the dry storage area, opened and undated: one box of oatmeal cookies, one box of Oreo cookies, and a 5-gallon bucket of chicken base. B. In the main freezer- opened and undated: one bag of fried steak and one bag of Salisbury steak, two uncooked pie shells, 5 cooked apple pies, and 6 boxes of frozen cookies. C. In the walk-in refrigerator: opened and undated one 5-gallon bucket of pickles and a staff's lunch bag was noted to be stored on a shelf with facility supplied resident food items. Interview with the FSD on 11/4/24 at 10:40 AM indicated that he or the chef were responsible for dating items when the packaging was opened. He was unable to explain why the identified items were opened and undated. The FSD was unable to…

  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 · D2024-11-08 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  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 interviews and record reviews for 2 of 2 residents, (Resident #40 and Resident #46) reviewed for advance directives, for Resident #40, the facility failed to transcribe advance directives according to the signed resident's wishes and for Resident #46, the facility failed to ensure the advance directive consent had been signed and available in the medical record. The findings include: 1. Resident #40's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified that Resident #40 was severely cognitively impaired, and was independent for eating, toileting, and transfers. The Resident Care Plan dated [DATE] identified Resident #40 had a status of DNR and a Registered Nurse (RN) may pronounce death. Interventions included not to resuscitate. The physician's orders dated [DATE] directed that Resident #40's advance directive was for a full code indicating cardiopulmonary…

  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 · D2024-11-08 · 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 staff interview, observations, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to implement fall prevention interventions as per the Resident Care Plan (RCP). The findings include: Resident #13's diagnoses included dementia, lack of coordination, and abnormality of gait and mobility. The RCP dated 9/3/19 through 11/7/24 identified Resident #13 had a history of falls with no serious injury (fell on 5/6/22, 7/11/22, 11/2/22, 5/22/23, 10/25/23, 11/13/23, and 9/24/24). Interventions implemented to prevent future falls included the placement of a floor mat to the door side of the bed at nighttime, wearing proper footwear, placement of skid strips in front of the dresser and next to his/her bed on the door side of the bed. An Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) progress note dated 11/13/23 directed skid strips in front of the dresser. The significant change in status Minimum Data Set 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-08 · 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 the only sampled resident (Resident #30), reviewed for a change in condition, the facility failed to follow the physician order for blood sugars and blood pressures, and for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #34), reviewed for accidents and hazards, the facility failed to administer medications to the appropriate resident. The findings include: 1. Resident #30's diagnoses include type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and vascular dementia. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 7/24/24 identified Resident #30 had hypertension with an intervention to monitor vital signs per physician (MD) order and notify the MD of abnormalities in the vital signs. Furthermore, the RCP identified Resident #30 had a history of abnormal glucose levels for which the intervention was to perform blood glucose checks and MD notification per provider orders. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #30 had severe 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-08 · 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 observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #34) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to appropriately supervise a resident during mealtime per the physician's order and during the initial facility tour, the facility failed to ensure water temperatures were maintained within acceptable parameters of 105 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit for 17 of 50 rooms. The findings include: 1. Resident #34's diagnoses included dementia, dysphagia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease and pneumonia with respiratory failure. A physician's order dated 8/8/24 directed supervision and out of bed with upright posture for meals. A Speech Therapy (ST) #1 progress note dated 8/8/24 at 3:03 PM identified that staff were reminded Resident #34 would benefit from eating his/her meals in the dining room and supervision for meals was required. The progress note further indicated that Resident #34's physician's orders for eating had been changed to…

  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 · D2024-11-08 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
  Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
  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 policy and interviews for the only sampled resident, (Resident #49), reviewed for hemolytic treatment, the facility failed to communicate a new allergy to the treatment center. The findings include: Resident #49's diagnosis included chronic kidney disease, end stage renal disease, diabetes, and was noted to be legally blind. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified that Resident #49 was cognitively intact, required set up for eating, and partial/moderate assist for showering, dressing, and personal hygiene. Also, identified was that Resident #49 required a wheelchair and went for hemolytic treatments. A nursing progress note dated 8/19/24 identified that Resident #49 had a change in condition on 8/19/24 related to an allergic reaction from eating peanut butter. Resident #49 experienced numbness and tingling to his/her lips. The APRN was notified and directed to add peanut butter to the allergy list. 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

“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

$12,735 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $12,735 — penalty dated 2025-10-23

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 26 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

9 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.

About 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.

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