Home / Connecticut / Rocky Hill
45 Elm Street, Rocky Hill, CT 06067 · Capitol County · (860) 529-8661
120 certified beds, about 96 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1971
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075211 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 24, 2024, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 42 health citations since October 2021, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $28,565 in the last three years; the largest was $10,839, and the latest is dated January 17, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.06 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.34 of those hours.
17.8% 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 42 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for elopement, the facility failed to ensure supervision to prevent a resident with dementia from leaving the building without staff knowledge. The failure resulted in staff being unaware Resident 1 was missing from the facility until notified by the local police.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for admission to the facility, the facility failed to notify the Medical Director when a resident, that had been accepted to be admitted to the facility, was denied admission after he/she arrived at the facility; and for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #11) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure a provider was notified when a medication was omitted on twenty-four different occasions.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #11) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the resident was administered medication according to provider order which resulted in medication omissions over a 6-week period (24 missed doses).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #1) who was at risk for falls, the facility failed to ensure a staff member did not leave Resident #1 unattended while ambulating without an assistive device to prevent a fall that resulted with Resident #1 sustaining a fracture of the right humerus and laceration to the right eyebrow.
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 accidents with injuries, the facility failed to ensure the resident received orthopedic follow-up timely per Emergency Department (ED) directives following a fall with a fracture within the facility.
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 pressure ulcers, the facility failed to inspect the residents skin following the application of a splint in accordance to facility policy resulting in a pressure ulcer.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, facility policy, job descriptions, and interviews the facility failed to ensure the environment was clean, maintained in good condition repair and homelike, and on the Ambrosia unit, the facility failed to secure cable TV wiring resulting in wires hanging from the television sets, obstructing the television screen viewing, and in one room, wiring dangling on the floor.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interview ,the facility failed to ensure that one of 2 emergency exit points on a resident unit was free of equipment and clutter to allow access to the exit doors; and for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #26) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure that fall risk assessments were completed for a resident with a history of multiple falls with injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff verbalized understanding of the protocol for informing personnel and visitors of a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP), specifically as it applies to alerts placed on the resident name plate upon entering the room.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for 5 of 5 residents (Resident #3, 19, 29, 41, and 49) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to ensure residents had the opportunity to accept or refuse the 2023-24 Covid-19 vaccine, during the 2023-24 fall/winter virus season.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #8 and 65) reviewed for notification of change and medication administration, for Resident #8, the facility failed to notify the resident representative when there was a change in the residents condition which required new orders for chest x-rays, new medications, and antibiotic and for Resident #65 the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified when a medication to treat low blood pressure was held without parameters. Additionally, for 1 of 2 residents, (Resident #11) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to notify the attending physician and the psychiatric provider when the resident pointed his/her finger/hand in the shape of a gun at a nurse aides head and said [NAME].
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to protect Resident #11 from abuse by Resident #31, who stabbed Resident #11 in the neck with a fork.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to immediately report to the State Survey Agency, witnessed abuse by Resident #31, who stabbed Resident #11 in the neck with a fork, and failed to report the results of the investigation, in accordance with State law, to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for Pre-admission Screening and Record Review (PASARR), the facility failed to complete a rescreen PASARR following a new serious mental disorder diagnoses that was identified on 1/13/22.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #19 and 26) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure that an RN assessment was completed after an unwitnessed fall, and failed ensure post-accident and incident (A&I) assessments and neurological assessments were initiated and completed per facility policy following unwitnessed falls and for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #65) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure a medication was administered per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation and interviews for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #11, 18 and 39) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed ensure respiratory equipment was maintained and stored in a clean and sanitary manner and respiratory equipment was changed according to physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #14) reviewed for a specialized medical treatment, the facility failed to maintain an accurate daily fluid intake record for a resident on a fluid restriction.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to complete performance reviews for nurse aides once every 12 months. Review of facility documentation, including nurse aide personnel files indicated performance reviews were not done for 2023. Interview with the HR Director on 9/23/24 at 10:40 AM identified that she is new to the facility and as a result they were unsure of previous year's performance reviews. Interview with the DNS on 09/24/24 at 10:43AM identified the staff development nurse did the performance reviews last year and she is not working at this time. The DNS indicated she will search her files for information regarding annual reviews. Interview with the Administrator on 9/24/24 at 2:00 PM identified the management team is new to the facility and performance reviews will be addressed going forward. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility documentation, and interviews for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that skin protective measures were implemented in accordance with physician orders, and failed to ensure that the residents wheelchair was free from accident hazards, as a result, the resident sustained a laceration that required sixteen (16) sutures.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interviews, facility documentation and policies for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #3) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to notify family/responsible party of a medication change.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, interviews, facility documentation and policies for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #3) reviewed for abuse and accidents the facility failed to complete investigations in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of two (2) residents, (Resident #2), reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure a medication was administered in accordance with physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #8) were reviewed for pain management, the facility failed to ensure Resident #8 received the scheduled and as needed pain medications within the facility time parameters for medication administration.
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 diabetes management, the facility failed to notify the physician and the responsible party when the resident's blood sugar was noted to be abnormal.
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 verbal abuse.
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 diabetes management, the facility failed to ensure a resident with diabetes had an order in place to treat hypoglycemia, and failed to ensure a resident's blood sugar was rechecked after providing treatment for hypoglycemia.
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 accidents, the facility failed to ensure a that a resident was not left unsupervised outside the facility at night while the facility doors were locked.
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 dialysis, the facility failed to provide a meal to a resident who was leaving the facility prior to the morning meal for dialysis treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation review, and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Resident #5) who were reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure Resident #5 was not struck by a meal cart causing the resident to fall wand sustain a fracture of the right humerus.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for three of four sampled residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, and #4) who were reviewed for an allegation of abuse, the facility failed to ensure Residents #2, #3 and #4 were free from physical abuse by Resident #1.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 30 of 34 residents (Residents #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, and #34) reviewed for comprehensive assessments, the facility failed to complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the regulatory time frame.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of four sampled residents (Residents #1) who were reviewed for an allegation of abuse, the facility failed to ensure documentation of one to one (1:1) observation was located in the clinical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interview the facility failed to have adequate policies and procedures in place to address continuity of care in an internet service outage/disruption, including medication administration for 16 of 61 residents (Residents #1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 18, 19, 22, 30, 32, 35, 38, 41, 46, 50 and 160) who required medications during an internet service outage/distruption.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy and interview for 1 resident (Resident #26) who required a CPAP (A CPAP is a continuous positive airway pressure machine used as a common treatment for sleep apnea), the facility failed to ensure that CPAP was stored in accordance with facility policy and infection control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of medication storage, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of two medication rooms (ambrosia/empire) the facility failed to ensure medications were stored safely in the medication refrigerator.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and staff interviews for a review of the facility infection control, the facility failed to conduct a thorough outbreak investigation including contact tracing and to report to outbreak to the state agency when an employee tested positive for COVID-19.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy and staff interviews for six employees (NA #2, NA #8, LPN#1, LPN #5, Housekeeper #1, and [NAME] Supervisor #1), the facility failed to ensure COVID-19 testing were conducted in accordance with CDC guidance for the employees.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of two residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #12), the facility failed to treat Resident #12 with respect and dignity when providing care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and staff interviews for one of four sampled residents (Resident #20) reviewed for ADL, the facility failed to ensure a resident was walked according to the functional maintenance program.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and staff interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #20) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to ensure orthostatic blood pressures were monitored weekly with in accordance with facility practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and staff interviews for one sampled resident (Resident # 55) reviewed for death, the facility failed to ensure meals, intake and output, vital signs and clinical assessments were consistently documented in the medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of documentation of the facility infection control program and staff interviews, the facility failed to designate a qualified infection preventionist who was responsible for managing and overseeing the facility's infection control program.
13 fire safety citations on file: 2 on September 24, 2024, 3 on April 29, 2022, 8 on October 27, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 17, 2025 | Fine | $9,536 |
| August 21, 2024 | Fine | $10,839 |
| December 8, 2023 | Fine | $8,190 |
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) | 3.06 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.34 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.85 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.87 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.85 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 17.8% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 18.2% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.41 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 3.14 on weekdays and 2.85 on weekends, 9% 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 3.06 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 | 3.06 | 0.34 | 3.14 | 2.85 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 96 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.13 | 0.42 | 3.24 | 2.84 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 89 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.23 | 0.48 | 3.35 | 2.92 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.07 | 0.46 | 3.18 | 2.79 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 88 |
| 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 | 18.9 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.2 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.5 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.4 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.7 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Apple Rehab Rocky Hill's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.6% 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. 51 eligible stays.
12.8% 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. 80 eligible stays.
7.0% 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. 51 eligible stays.
40.9% 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. 22 residents counted.
3.0% 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. 33 residents counted.
9.2% 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. 33 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 8 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: ELM HILL 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% | 12/05/1986 |
| Singh, Devika | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/10/2018 | |
| Foley, Brian | Corporate director | Individual | 12/05/1986 | |
| 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.