Home / Connecticut / Colchester
36 Broadway Street, Colchester, CT 06415 · Capitol County · (860) 537-4606
60 certified beds, about 54 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1974
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075231 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 12, 2025, inspectors cited 3 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 49 health citations since December 2020, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $41,203 in the last three years; the largest was $28,579, and the latest is dated May 6, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.25 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.97 of those hours.
54.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Apple Rehab, an affiliated group of 20 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 49 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure the resident was fully assessed by the nurse following a fall with pain and possible injury prior to staff transferring the resident back to bed and failed to ensure a fall risk assessment was completed for the resident per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who had sustained a fall, the facility failed implement interventions to ensure the resident was treated for severe pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication cart located in the hallway was locked and the medication was secured to prevent unauthorized access.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from inappropriate touching by Resident #41, who had a history of inappropriate touching.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure that 2 staff members were present during care per the care card and physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #6) reviewed for tracheostomy care, the facility failed to ensure that appropriate infection control practices were implemented during tracheostomy care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1's bed was in the lowest position prior to leaving the room to minimize or prevent an injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for four of six residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the residents were free from abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for four of eight residents (Resident #1, #2, #3, and #4) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed notify the State Agency of an allegation of abuse in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for two residents (Resident #1 and #5) reviewed for behavioral health, the facility failed to accurately reflect the behaviors that were exhibited and treated.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for all residents (fifty-seven), reviewed for administration, the facility failed to ensure medications were documented during an electronic charting system outage.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews, for 4 of 18 residents (Residents 4, 1, 21 and 23) who alleged rough care was provided by staff and alleged incontinent care was not provided timely, the Facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from abuse and/or neglect. The failures resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy. Cross reference F610 1. Resident #4's diagnoses included spinal stenosis (narrowing of the space around the spinal cord) and anxiety disorder. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of a nursing note dated 6/18/2024 at 3:38 AM identified that at 12:30 AM, Resident #4 alleged he/she had been harmed by a NA during care on the evening of 6/17/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for five (5) of twenty-three residents (Resident #1, 4, 11, 5, and 2), reviewed for abuse and/or neglect, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported immediately to the State Agency as required (within 2 hours if resulted in serious bodily injury or not later that 24 hours if no bodily injury).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews for twelve of twenty-three residents (Residents #13, 14, 15, 12, 11, 1, 7, 10, 4, 9, 2, and 5) reviewed for allegations of abuse, the facility failed to provide evidence that allegations of abuse and/or neglect were thoroughly investigated and failed to ensure an accused staff member was immediately suspended pending investigation to ensure all residents were protected from potential abuse in accordance with facility policy. The failures resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for facility Administration review, the facility failed to ensure the facility administered its resources effectively and to ensure effective administrative oversight of staff and resident care timely to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for facility QAPI review, the facility failed to ensure the facility was able to maintain compliance with deficiencies previously identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for eight of nine residents (Resident #13, #14, 15, 12, 11, 1, 10 and 9) reviewed for grievances, the facility failed to ensure grievances were responded to timely and failed to ensure the complainant was notified of the results timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for two (2) of eighteen (18) residents, (Resident #9 and 10), reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed timely to include resident refusals of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for two (2) of eighteen (18) residents, (Resident #1 and #7), reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure Resident Care Conferences were held with the resident and/or resident representative quarterly in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one (1) of eighteen (18) residents, (Resident #22), reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure monitoring was provided in accordance with the plan of care and/or in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #4) reviewed for care and services, the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing to ensure resident care was provided timely to include transfer out of bed before lunch in accordance with resident wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and interviews for two (2) of five (5) nurse's aides reviewed for performance evaluations, the facility failed to ensure nurse's aides received annual performance evaluations.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for seven (6) of twenty-three (23) residents, (Resident #1, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14), reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the residents were provided social services support timely after an allegation of mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for two of eighteen residents (Resident #4 and #21) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate to include documentation of meal intakes and weekly showers.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for three of nine sampled residents (Residents #2, #3, and #7) who had an alteration in skin integrity, the facility failed to change the wound dressings in accordance with the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for four of nine sampled residents (Residents #1, #4, #5, and #6) who had a pressure ulcer, the facility failed to change the wound dressings in accordance with the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who had sustained a laceration, the facility failed to develop routine preventive maintenance of bed rails to protect a resident from an injury that resulted from an uncapped side rail.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure a change in condition was reported timely to the physician and the responsible party.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for three (3) of three (3) residents (Resident #1, Resident #2 and Resident #3) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report two residents to resident sexual incidents to the state agency within the required time frame.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan with appropriate interventions was implemented for a resident with wandering behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, review of facility's documentation and interviews for two of four sampled resident (Resident #14 & #46) with facility acquired pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure interventions were consistently implemented to prevent the development and subsequent treatment of a pressure ulcer/injury by ensuring the residents' heels were off loaded per the plan of care and physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of nineteen residents (Resident #356) reviewed for advance directives, the facility failed to ensure there was a physician's order indicating the resident's wishes related to cardiopulmonary code status, hospitalization, and intravenous fluids.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, review of facility's documentation and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #28) who required extensive assistance with personal care, the facility failed to ensure that the resident was free of facial hair.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of six sampled residents (Resident #28) receiving an antipsychotic medication and one of four sampled residents (Resident #46) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were followed regarding the monitoring of orthostatic blood pressures and failed to ensure that the dietician was notified timely after a new pressure ulcer wound was identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #27) reviewed for limited range of motion, the facility failed to ensure splints were applied per the physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #356) who acquired assistance with transfers and was reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the utilization of a gait belt during a transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews, for one of four sampled residents (Resident #24) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure a dietician's recommendation was followed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews, for one of four sampled residents (Resident #24) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure a dietician's recommendation was followed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the laundry room where clean linen was stored was free of dust.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, review of facility documentation, facility policy review, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #10) who was reviewed for the use of a physical restraint, the facility failed to utilize a lap tray on the wheelchair in accordance with the physician's order to ensure the resident's movement was not restricted and failed to conduct restraint evaluations to determine if the lap tray was utilized as a restraint.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #15) who was reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions, the facility failed to monitor and ensure the manufacturer's guidelines related to a heat therapy treatment device were followed to prevent the resident from sustaining a burn.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #14) who were reviewed for allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure psychosocial support was provided to the resident after the incident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications residents (Resident #20), the facility failed to discontinue a medication as needed on the medication adminstration record and the monthly physican's order sheets after the phsyician had discontinued the medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #18) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medication use, the facility failed to monitor orthostatic blood pressures in accordance with the physician's order and facility policy, and the facility failed to monitor targeted behaviors specific to antipsychotic medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for three of seven sampled residents (Resident #8, #29 and #38) observed during medication administration, the facility failed to ensure that residents wore identification band or the charge nurse verified the resident's identify by another form of visible identified to prevent a medication error.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews for one of two medication rooms and two of three medication carts, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured in a locked medication storage area.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, review of facility documentation, facility policy review, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #10) who was reviewed for the utilization of adaptive equipment during meals, the facility failed to provide the resident with a special beverage cup to maintain promote, or improve their ability to eat or drink independently.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to implement infection control techniques to prevent the possible transmission of COVID-19.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2025 | Fine | $12,624 |
| August 8, 2024 | Fine | $28,579 |
| February 22, 2024 | Payment Denial | 26 days from May 22, 2024 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Connecticut | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.25 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.97 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.85 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.92 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.35 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 54.8% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.78 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.41 on weekdays and 2.85 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.33 in April to June 2025 to 3.25 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.25 | 0.97 | 3.41 | 2.85 | 1.9% | 0 of 90 | 54 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.35 | 0.99 | 3.49 | 2.99 | 9.4% | 0 of 92 | 53 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.26 | 0.94 | 3.43 | 2.84 | 4.3% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.33 | 0.87 | 3.45 | 3.02 | 11.6% | 0 of 91 | 54 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Connecticut, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.66 | 0.61 | 3.80 | 3.31 | 6.0% | 1.3% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.53 | $20.14 to $22.68 | 21,380 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $35.43 | $32.05 to $36.94 | 8,540 |
| Registered nurses | $49.39 | $41.40 to $58.58 | 40,110 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Connecticut | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 34.4 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 30.0 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.8 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 39.2 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.1 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Apple Rehab Colchester's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (61.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
61.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Connecticut: 75 better, 2 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 66 eligible stays.
10.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Connecticut: 0 better, 3 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 69 eligible stays.
6.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Connecticut: 0 better, 2 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 40 eligible stays.
60.0% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut58.9% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 25 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 34 residents counted.
5.7% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut1.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 34 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 21 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: LIBERTY HALL NURSING CENTER INC. CMS links this home to Apple Rehab, a group of 20 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foley, Brian | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 100% | 10/01/1985 |
| Foley, Brian | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/1985 | |
| Ryan, Lisa | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2016 | |
| Foley, Brendan | Corporate director | Individual | 04/13/2015 | |
| Vess, Ryan | Corporate director | Individual | 03/15/2013 | |
| Foley, Brendan | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/13/2015 | |
| Foley, Brian | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/01/1985 | |
| Vess, Ryan | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/15/2013 | |
| Apple Health Care, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/1985 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Connecticut. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.