Home / Connecticut / New London
31 Vauxhall Street, New London, CT 06320 · Southeastern Ct County · (860) 442-4363
60 certified beds, about 57 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075335 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 26, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 23 health citations since March 2021 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.00 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.95 of those hours.
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 23 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased 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 treated the resident with dignity and respect when the resident did not respond to redirection.
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 to prevent further potential abuse while the investigation was in progress and failed to suspend the alleged staff member during the investigation in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse or neglect, the facility failed to provide physician order medications as scheduled.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and an interviews for 30 of 52 sampled residents (Resident #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, #13, #14, #15, #18, #23, #24, #26, #28, #29, #30, #33, #35, #39, #42, #44, #58, #500, #501, #502, #503, #504, #505, #506, and #507) reviewed for personal funds, the facility failed to credit interest earned to each resident's personal funds account.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy for 3 of 4 sampled residents (Resident #4, Resident #22, and Resident #33) reviewed for advanced directives, the facility failed to obtain a signed copy of an Advanced Directive form for Resident #4 and Resident #33, and for Resident #22 failed to transcribe the signed Advance Directive form to the electronic medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the clinical record, interviews, facility documentation, and facility policy, for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #28) reviewed for abuse and for the only sampled resident (Resident #30) reviewed for grievances the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency per the requirement.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the clinical record, interviews, facility documentation, and facility policy, for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #28) reviewed for abuse and for the only sampled residents (Resident #30) reviewed for grievances the facility failed to investigate an allegation of abuse per the facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident, (Resident #33) reviewed for care planning, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Care Plan was reviewed and revised on a quarterly basis with participation from an interdisciplinary team and Resident #33's representative.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical record, facility policy, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure fingernail care was provided to Resident #4.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for 3 residents identified during the initial screening of residents (Resident # 51, Resident #48 and Resident #21) the facility failed to ensure medications were not at bedside and alcoholic beverages were not stored in the medication refrigerator in 1 of 2 medication refrigerators.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation, facility policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen ice machine was maintained in sanitary condition. During surveyor walk through of the kitchen on 6/23/2025 at 10:30 AM with Director of Dietary (DD) observation was made of a black substance within the ice machine. Interview and observation with the DD on 6/25/2025 at 11:57 AM identified that the ice machine cleaning would be the responsibility of the Maintenance Director but that the facility currently did not currently have a full time Maintenance Director. Additionally, the DD stated he never thought of looking up into the machine for cleanliness. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry the machine was cleaned by DD and the black residue was no longer present. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure staff provided care in accordance with the resident plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observation, review of facility's documentation review of policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #32) who was reviewed for falls, the facility failed to remove hazard to prevent a fall with injury and for 1 sampled resident ( Resident # 155) who required assistance with meal, the facility failed to remove a hot beverage lid to prevent an accident and for 1 sampled resident (Resident # 20) with history of dysphagia, the facility failed to cut up the resident's meat to prevent an accident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for allegations of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from staff abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy, and interviews for 1 sample resident (Resident # 37) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), the facility failed to obtain and complete a PASRR level II screening.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 sampled resident (Resident#51) who was reviewed for pressure ulcer, the facility failed to ensure that a care plan for prevention of skin breakdown was in place for a resident found at risk.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 5 residents for (Resident #206) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL), the facility failed to ensure the resident received assistance with ADL timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 Residents (#32) observed during meals that required feeding assistance by staff, the facility failed to ensure that staff provided one to one assistance to a resident with eating as directed by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility policy and interviews for 1 sampled resident (Resident#51) who was reviewed for pressure ulcer, the facility failed to ensure that a Resident at risk for skin breakdown did not develop a pressure ulcer.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for 1 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for Intravenous Therapy ( IV )therapy, the facility failed to ensure parenteral fluids were administered by qualified, competent and trained staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, interviews, and review of facility policy for 1 sampled residents( Resident #51) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure that infection control practices for a resident on isolation were followed and for 1 of 3 residents for (Resident# 208) reviewed for toileting/incontinent care, the facility failed to ensure that staff performed proper hand hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and interviews for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #5 and #7), the facility failed to ensure the resident's MDS accurately reflected the residents discharge status at the time of the assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and interview for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Residents #29, #36 and #41) reviewed for the timeliness of physician's orders, the facility failed to ensure that the routine medication orders were reviewed, renewed, signed and dated every sixty days.
10 fire safety citations on file: 5 on June 26, 2025, 2 on April 20, 2023, 3 on March 1, 2021.
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) | 4.00 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.95 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.65 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.22 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.83 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.95 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 4.14 on weekdays and 3.65 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 9.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.94 in April to June 2025 to 4.00 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 | 4.00 | 0.95 | 4.14 | 3.65 | 9.0% | 0 of 90 | 57 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.90 | 0.95 | 4.03 | 3.59 | 8.5% | 0 of 92 | 57 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.88 | 1.08 | 4.00 | 3.59 | 7.5% | 0 of 92 | 54 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.94 | 1.13 | 4.06 | 3.63 | 5.6% | 0 of 91 | 56 |
| 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.
| 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 | 23.2 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 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 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.3 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.4 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.7 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.8 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Beechwood Health & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (59.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.0% 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. 121 eligible stays.
10.9% 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. 117 eligible stays.
7.2% 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. 58 eligible stays.
59.6% 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. 47 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. 64 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. 64 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. 16 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: BEECHWOOD SNF OPCO LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dennehy, Raymond | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Kirchick, Joel | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Vera, Steven | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Wachusett Ventures LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Doherty, Lauren | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Lopatosky, Joseph | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Munson, Brandon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Vera, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Wachusett Ventures LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/27/2025 | |
| Dennehy, Raymond | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Doherty, Lauren | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/21/2025 | |
| Kirchick, Joel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Lopatosky, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Munson, Brandon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/27/2025 | |
| Vera, Steven | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 |
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.