Home / Connecticut / Middletown
600 Highland Ave, Middletown, CT 06457 · Lower Ct River Vly County · (860) 347-3315
70 certified beds, about 66 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1969
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075089 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on October 7, 2024, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 55 health citations since August 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.27 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.54 of those hours.
37.5% 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 55 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure an Elopement Risk evaluation was completed on admission to the facility per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation/policies, and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and failed to implement required elopement prevention processes for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. Resident #1 had documented cognitive impairment, required staff assistance for ambulation outside the room, did not have approval for an independent Leave of Absence (LOA), and did not have a completed Elopement Risk evaluation as required by facility policy. The facility permitted Resident #1 to sit outside without supervision, failed to monitor Resident #1's whereabouts, and failed to follow missing resident procedures. As a result, Resident #1 eloped from the facility and was later located by law enforcement at a hotel approximately four (4) miles away.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1), the facility failed to maintain a clinical record that was complete, accurate, and timely. Specifically, the facility failed to document that Resident #1 was missing from the facility on 5/8/26 and failed to ensure nursing documentation accurately reflected the circumstances of the resident's departure. These failures resulted in a clinical record lacking essential information needed to ensure continuity of care, accurate assessment, and a reliable account of significant events.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for three of four residents (Resident #2, #3 and #6) reviewed for medication errors, the facility failed to ensure the physician/APRN was notified timely when medications were not administered timely in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for four of four residents (Resident #1, #2, #3 and #6) reviewed for medication errors, the facility failed to ensure licensed staff covered a unit to administer medications timely and failed to ensure the residents were free from neglect when medications were not administered timely in accordance with physician orders and facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for four of four residents (Resident #1, #2, #3 and #6) reviewed for medication errors, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered timely and failed to ensure staff searched for medications that were unavailable in the unit medication cart.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for activities of daily living, the facility failed to ensure staff acted timely on therapy recommendations for alternative lifts for transfers.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication errors, the facility failed to ensure the physician orders were reviewed and renewed at least every 60 days.
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 an allegation of staff to resident abuse, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was treated with dignity and respect.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for an allegation of abuse, the facility failed to report the allegation to the Administrator and/or his/her designee immediately and to the state agency within two (2) hours after the allegation of verbal abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #17 and Resident #52) reviewed for self-medication administration, the facility failed to ensure a medication self-administration assessment were completed according to policy for a resident receiving medication assisted therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews , facility policy and staff interviews for 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization( Resident #6), the facility failed to ensure medication was available for the resident and for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for bathing( Residents #26, 27 and #52), the facility failed to ensure staff consistently provided evidence of the provision of showers, and for 1 resident ( Resident #215), reviewed for admission nursing assessment, the facility failed to ensure a body audit was completed on admission to ensure treatment orders were followed as prescribed by the physician and for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #415) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to initiate a new treatment order per physician and for 1 of 2 residents ( Resident # 64) reviewed for intake and output, the facility failed to consistently monitor the resident's [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain the dry food storage to ensure the area was free from insects and failed to follow recommendations their pest control program.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of policy and staff interviews for 3 of 22 residents (Resident #20, 41, and #59) observed for call bell location within reach, the facility failed to ensure call bells were within reach of each resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Council Minutes and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure written responses to residents' concerns voiced about call bells within reach and or staff response time to call bells during Resident Council meetings were addressed timely by administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and staff interview for the 1 resident (Resident #10) reviewed for Advanced Directives, the facility failed to ensure the resident's advanced directives were obtained timely and reviewed each care plan meeting.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation and staff interviews for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #415) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to notify the physician when the medication was not available for administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and staff interviews for 1 sampled resident( Resident # 64) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from physical abuse by Resident #36.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #166) reviewed for Specialized Treatment, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was in place.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #165) reviewed for care planning, the facility failed to revise the resident's care plan and care card related to resident's showers.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and staff interviews for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #52) the facility failed to provide the necessary supervision and to educate staff regarding interventions for 1:1 monitoring in common area to ensure a safe environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident # 57), the facility failed to ensure monthly weights were completed in the clinical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for the 2 of 2 sampled resident (Residents # 40 and # 366) reviewed for Respiratory Care and utilized oxygen, the facility failed to administer oxygen per physician's order and label the oxygen tubing per facility practice
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review and staff interviews for 1 resident (Resident # 215) who had a food allergy to eggs, the facility failed to ensure a food item listed as an allergy was not served to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident Assessment and staff interviews for 4 of 6 sampled residents ( Residents # 7, # 8, # 11 and # 35) reviewed for assessments, the facility failed to submit the residents' assessment timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident # 365) reviewed for bladder and bowel incontinence, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate record regarding the resident's care.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #165 and #166) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to ensure the facility communicated important medical information to the resident and continuing care provider at time of anticipated discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility policy and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #165 and 166) reviewed for physician orders, the facility failed to ensure the weekly body audits and Braden scales were completed per the physician orders for a resident at risk for skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 resident (Resident #166) reviewed for specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident's fluid restriction was maintained and failed to ensure monitoring of the fistula.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #165 and #166) reviewed for physician's orders, the facility failed to ensure the admission, interim, and discharge order were signed by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed change in condition, the facility failed to ensure an order obtained timely for emergency Glucagon for a diabetic with a known history of low blood sugars.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation and facility policy reviewed for Resident Rights regarding respect and dignity, the facility failed to ensure residents were not exposed to a verbal and physical altercation between three (3) staff members that involved two (2) charge nurses and one (1) nurse aide.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interview, and review of facility documentation for one of three residents who required wound care, (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure that the resident's record was complete and accurate.
Inspectors wroteBased 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 ensure staff acted on an allegation of mistreatment timely and failed to 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 one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care, the facility failed to ensure staff completed neurological assessments timely for a resident after an unwitnessed fall per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, and interviews for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive investigation was completed after unwitnessed resident falls and the facility failed to ensure the care plan was updated timely after resident falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of two residents (Resident #6) reviewed for advance directives, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's advance directive choices were reflected accurately in the resident record.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one resident, (Resident #38) reviewed for hemodialysis, the facility failed to ensure physician ' s order were obtained timely for hemodialysis and to direct staff to avoid blood pressures in the arm with the dialysis site, and failed to ensure staff monitored the dialysis right arm arteriovenous fistula (AVF) dialysis site for any adverse signs and symptoms and bruit and thrill per the facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for the one sampled resident, (Resident #27) reviewed for choices, the facility failed to ensure a recliner chair was positioned per the resident's wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for one sampled Resident (Resident #25) reviewed for catheterization, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a change in condition timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for environment review, the facility failed to ensure fans were maintained in a clean condition without debris.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility policy review, and interviews for one sampled Resident (Resident #27) reviewed for a hearing deficit, the facility failed to ensure the care plan reflected the resident's hearing deficit and failed to ensure the NA care card reflected the need for hearing aids, and for one sampled resident (Resident #42), reviewed for behaviors, the facility failed to ensure that a comprehensive care plan was developed to address the resident's history of aggressive and accusatory behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility policy review, and interviews for three of four residents (Resident #11, #25 and #27) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), the facility failed to ensure a dependent resident received appropriate assistance with grooming and hygiene timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility policy review, and interviews for two of three residents (Resident #11, Resident #27) reviewed for a sensory deficit, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents had access to eye glasses and hearing aids timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for two of three residents (Resident #41 and #44) reviewed for the nutrition, the facility failed to obtain weekly weights per the dietitian recommendations and the physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation review, and interviews for five of five employee file review (NA #2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure annual employee evaluations were conducted timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of five residents, (Resident #38) reviewed for pharmacy review, the facility failed to ensure staff acted upon a Pharmacy Consultant recommendation timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for facility Medication Storage review, the facility failed to ensure insulin vials and pens in the medication carts were labeled and dated timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, and interviews the facility failed to utilize resources effectively to ensure resident needs were met timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for three residents (Resident #6, #25, #27 and #31) reviewed for care and services, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate, to include nurse's notes of an allegation of mistreatment timely, to include accurate information on the medication/treatment record, and refusals of dental care.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the clinical record, a review of facility documentation, staff interviews and a review of the facility policy for one sampled resident (Resident #36), reviewed for restraints, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from physical restraints which resulted in a fall with an injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the clinical record, staff interviews, observations, and a review of the facility policy for one of three sampled Residents (Resident #47), reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for the administration of oxygen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interview and a review of the facility policy reviewed for dining, the facility failed to ensure staff served and/or distributed food in a sanitary manner .
Inspectors wroteBased on a clinical record review, a review of facility documentation, staff interviews and a review of the facility policy for one sampled resident (Resident #32) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to implement measures to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer and/or failed to conduct an initial comprehensive wound assessment and/or failed to conduct weekly wound assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1of 5 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to follow the pharmacy recommendations for a dose reduction of a Proton-Pump Inhibitor.
8 fire safety citations on file: 5 on October 7, 2024, 3 on May 10, 2022.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.27 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.54 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.04 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.00 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.74 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 37.5% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.25 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 3.37 on weekdays and 3.04 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.07 in April to June 2025 to 3.27 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 | 3.27 | 0.54 | 3.37 | 3.04 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 66 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.32 | 0.54 | 3.41 | 3.07 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 65 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.26 | 0.57 | 3.38 | 2.96 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 65 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.07 | 0.62 | 3.15 | 2.86 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 65 |
| 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 | 15.9 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.2 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.2 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.3 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.9 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Apple Rehab Middletown's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.3% 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. 71 eligible stays.
10.5% 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. 73 eligible stays.
6.2% 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. 39 eligible stays.
71.4% 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. 28 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. 42 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 42 residents counted.
95.0% 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. 20 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: HIGHVIEW HEALTH CARE 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% | 12/29/1986 |
| Singh, Devika | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/10/2018 | |
| Foley, Brian | Corporate director | Individual | 12/29/1986 | |
| Vess, Ryan | Corporate director | Individual | 03/15/2013 | |
| Vess, Ryan | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/15/2013 | |
| Vess, Ryan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/15/2013 |
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.