Home / Connecticut / Plainfield
20 Babcock Avenue, Plainfield, CT 06374 · Northeastern Ct County · (860) 564-3387
56 certified beds, about 57 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1974
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075084 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 10, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 63 health citations since August 2021, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $36,384 in the last three years; the largest was $14,433, and the latest is dated March 30, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.31 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
54.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
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 63 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation/policies, and interviews, for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #4) reviewed for notification of change, the facility failed to notify the resident representative (Person #1) of a significant change in status when Resident #4 attempted to exit the facility and a Wanderguard (an electronic monitoring device that alerts staff when at risk individuals approach or attempt to exit secured areas) was applied to the right wrist. The failure to notify Person #1 resulted in Resident #4's representative being unaware of the change in condition and unable to participate in care decisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews, for two (2) of five (5) sampled residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for allegations of abuse, the facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was free from abuse when Resident #1 entered Resident #2's room and touched Resident #2 inappropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews, for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #4) reviewed for elopement risk, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was free from restraint. After a single, easily redirected attempt to exit the facility, staff applied a Wanderguard without obtaining prior consent from the responsible party and without attempting less restrictive interventions, despite no further documented wandering or exit seeking behaviors. This resulted in unnecessary restriction of Resident #4's freedom of movement.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, for two (2) of five (5) sampled residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for allegations of abuse, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an allegation of sexual abuse. Specifically, the facility did not interview residents who had the potential to be affected, despite the alleged perpetrator self propelling throughout the building in a wheelchair.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #4) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate to include functional/mobility status, care provided and meal percentages consumed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility policies, and interviews for food and nutrition services, the facility failed to ensure food and drink items were labeled, expired food items were disposed of, and the Dining Room steam cart was clean and sanitary.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policies, and interviews for pharmacy services, the facility failed to ensure accurate reconciliation of all controlled substances when staff did not document an accurate inventory of controlled substances at the change of shift.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation/policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure injuries, the facility failed to ensure implementation of physician-ordered interventions, ongoing skin monitoring, and timely identification and reporting of changes in skin condition for a resident at very high risk for pressure injury development, resulting in the development of a facility-acquired, medical device-related Stage IV pressure injury to the right ankle.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation/policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure injuries, the facility failed to ensure timely notification of the physician and registered nurse regarding a significant change in skin condition for a resident at very high risk for pressure injury development, including failure to report observed bruising and soft tissue changes under a medical device (right leg brace). This failure resulted in a delay in medical evaluation and intervention, and the subsequent development of a facility-acquired, medical device-related Stage IV pressure injury to the right ankle.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #25, Resident #31, Resident #39) reviewed for care plans, the facility failed to review and revise the Resident Care Plan (RCP) and for Resident #31 failed to conduct Resident Care Plan Conferences per the requirement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and a temperature test, the facility failed to ensure that food was palatable and served at a safe and appetizing temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #212) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to notify the physician for a change in condition and for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #213) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to notify the physician when the medication was not available for administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of clinical records, facility documentation, and facility policy for 1 of 3 residents, (Resident #25) reviewed for dignity, and for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #32 and #39) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse to the State Agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of clinical records, facility documentation, and facility policy for 1 of 3 residents, (Resident #25) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of sexual abuse and failed to remove the staff member from the schedule following the allegation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents, (Resident #13) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with obvious deformities of the wrist and hip was not moved according to standards of practice and for the only sampled resident (Resident #212) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to complete a Registered Nurse (RN) assessment for change in condition according to standards of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #212) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to ensure appropriate communication with the hemolytic treatment center.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of clinical records, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for infection control practices, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene during wound care.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #28, Resident #48, Resident #58) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to identify Covid 19 vaccination status, offer the Covid 19 vaccination (or provide information where to obtain), and failed to educate the resident on the risks and benefits of Covid 19 vaccinations.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who was status post fracture of the right lower leg and required a knee brace and an assistive device for standing, the facility failed to apply the hinged knee brace to the right leg prior to standing the resident which caused the resident's leg to buckle resulting in a fall and the resident sustained an acute fracture of the proximal tibia.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews for one sampled resident who received an anticoagulant (blood thinner, increases risk for bleeding) medication (Resident ID #1) the facility failed to obtain an order to discontinue the anticoagulant medication prior to a dental procedure where twenty-three (23) teeth extracted. Subsequently Resident #1 continued to receive the anticoagulant medication, experienced bleeding requiring sutures, had a change in condition, was sent to the hospital where he/she suffered cardiac arrest and expired. This resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #1) who was reviewed for anticoagulation management, the facility failed to identify the need to evaluate the anticoagulation use prior to a scheduled procedure where twenty-three (23) teeth were extracted, failed to complete an RN assessment after Resident #1 had a change in condition, labored breathing and slight confusion post extraction procedure, failed to administer an antibiotic pre procedure as ordered, held the blood thinner medication for one dose without an order and failed to contact the physician that the dose was held. Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital where Resident #1 expired after suffering cardiac arrest.
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 ensure the resident was free from mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility policy and interviews for 7 of 7 sampled residents (Residents #3, #14, #26, #27, #28, #31 and #51), reviewed for Advanced Directives, the facility failed to establish advanced directives related to code status and other life sustaining treatments with newly admitted and readmitted residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the kitchen, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to complete dishwashing log sheets, attend to elevated refrigerator temperatures, properly label prepared foods, and dispose of expired foods and damaged cans of food.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #26 and Resident #359) who were reviewed for nutrition and pressure ulcers, the facility failed to inform the physician of a significant weight loss and change in a wound.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, inteviews and facility policy for of 2 of the 7 residents observed during medication administration the facility failed to ensure staff maintained the right to privacy of the residents when failed to knock on the door prior to entrance to a room.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, policy review and interviews for the 3 of 3 sampled residents for ( Resident # 22), reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to identify a decline in ADL and for 1 resident ( Resident # 38). reviewed for change in condition, the facility failed to complete a significant change assessment timely and for (Resident #212) reviewed for hospice, the facility failed to accurately identify, Resident #212 had received hospice care on 2 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of policy and staff interviews for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #17) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to develop a baseline care timely for a resident using a specialized respiratory device was care planned regarding the device.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility policy and staff interviews 1 of three 3 residents (Resident #359), reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to create and implement a plan of care for a resident with identified to be at risk fro pressure ulcers and for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #17) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to ensure that a resident using a specialized respiratory device was care planned regarding the device and
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (Resident #10), the facility failed to ensure a resident's shower schedule was care planned.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, review of policy and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident # 56) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to notify another state agency the resident left the facility Against Medical Advice and for ( Resident # 57), the facility failed to complete a recapitulation of the resident stay and retain discharge paperwork and instructions provided at discharge of a resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record reviews, review of facility policy, and interviews 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #26) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to implement care plan as directed to assist the resident as needed in performing ADL and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for dining and who required supervision with meals, the facility failed to assist the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Activities of daily living (Resident #10), the facility failed to consistently provide showers to the resident per plan of care and 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (Resident #22), the facility failed to ensure staff documented showers as given, trimmed, and kept nails free from debris.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation , review of the clinical record and interviews for 1of 4 residents who were reviewed during medication administration, the facility failed to administer the correct dose of medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #26) who was reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to weigh the resident in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility Intravenous (IV) Therapy Program, review of facility documentation, facility policy and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide evidence that licensed nurses had received IV certification training, specific IV in-services and competencies to care for residents receiving IV therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #14) reviewed for Activities, the facility failed to enter a physician's order for oxygen and for 1 of 1 ( Resident # 17), reviewed for respiratory, the facility failed to ensure a complete physician's order for the utilization of the device.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility policy and interviews for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #13 and #27), reviewed for physician's orders, the facility failed to ensure orders were signed timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #23) who was screened on the initial tour of the facility, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were signed timely per facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility staff education and interview, the facility failed to ensure mandatory staffing was completed to meet the 12-hour annual requirement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations during medication administration, review of policy and interview, the facility failed to dispose of an expired bottle of multi-vitamins.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the noon meal and interviews for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #26) who was reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to prepare food by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility documentation and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident, (Resident #12) reviewed for food allergies, the facility failed to ensure that resident received a meal free of food allergy.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the Facility Assessment and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Facility Assessment was updated to reflect the staffing needs of the building.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #26) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to accurately document meal intake in the clinical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program documentation, review of policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure records of QAA/QAPI were maintained.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program documentation, review of policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure systems were in place for monitoring adverse events for identified QAPI concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #9) who was observed during blood glucose testing, the facility failed to disinfect glucometer per manufacturer's instructions.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, review of policy and staff interview for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 17) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the resident's bed was free from a gap.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and a review of staff education, the facility failed to ensure mandatory staffing was completed to meet the 12-hour annual requirement.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, and interviews for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #14) who was reviewed for Skin Conditions/Non-Pressure, the facility failed to accurately code the Five-Day Minimum Data Set assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of two (2) residents, (Resident #359), reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure weekly assessments and treatments were in place for a resident with identified pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for Resident #23, reviewed for a choking, the facility failed to provide the resident's prescribed mechanically altered diet which resulted in the resident requiring the Heimlich maneuver.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #2) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed provide care and services to address a significant ongoing weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #2) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to report a significant ongoing weight loss to the physician in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #36 & #104) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment and misappropriation of resident property, the facility failed to ensure that the resident was free from the misappropriation of property and failed to ensure that the resident was free from mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #36) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure that the alleged mistreatment was reported to the state survey agency within prescribed parameters.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #36) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure that the resident was protected from the potential for further mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, observation, interview and review of facility policy for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #404) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to ensure safety measures were in place to prevent a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #4) reviewed for the timeliness of resident assessments, the facility failed to ensure that an annual MDS assessment was conducted within 366 days of the previous significant change assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Residents #2) reviewed for resident assessments, the facility failed to ensure the quarterly MDS assessments was completed within 92 days of the previous assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation and staff interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #404) reviewed for resident assessments, the facility failed to electronically transmit an MDS assessment to the CMS designated system within specified time parameters (within 14 days of the final completion date)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interview for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident#19) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment was coded correctly related to diuretic use.
9 fire safety citations on file: 8 on September 20, 2023, 1 on August 10, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 30, 2026 | Fine | $9,110 |
| January 2, 2025 | Fine | $12,841 |
| May 7, 2024 | Fine | $14,433 |
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) | 3.31 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.11 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.98 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.74 | ||
| 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 | 1 |
CMS expects 3.89 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 3.40 on weekdays and 3.11 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 9.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.33 in April to June 2025 to 3.31 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 | 3.31 | 0.59 | 3.40 | 3.11 | 9.8% | 0 of 90 | 57 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.28 | 0.59 | 3.39 | 2.99 | 6.4% | 0 of 92 | 57 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.32 | 0.60 | 3.49 | 2.89 | 3.0% | 0 of 92 | 56 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.33 | 0.61 | 3.50 | 2.92 | 1.5% | 0 of 91 | 59 |
| 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 | 19.1 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.4 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.8 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.5 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.2 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.6 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Villa Maria Nursing and Rehabilitation Community's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (59.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.1% 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. 75 eligible stays.
9.6% 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. 92 eligible stays.
7.7% 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. 43 eligible stays.
58.8% 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. 34 residents counted.
2.4% 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. 41 residents counted.
4.3% 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. 41 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. 13 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: PLAINFIELD SNF OPCO LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dennehy, Raymond | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 09/22/2021 | |
| Kirchick, Joel | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 09/27/2021 | |
| Vera, Steven | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 09/27/2021 | |
| Berkshire Bank | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 09/22/2021 | |
| Wachusett Ventures LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/22/2021 | |
| Alessandro, Joseph | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Antico, Joan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/12/2024 | |
| Cabot, Melissa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/23/2024 | |
| Diaz, Victor | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/15/2024 | |
| Ellis, Sharon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/07/2019 | |
| Fournier, Theresa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/15/2023 | |
| Gray, Kimberly | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/23/2019 | |
| Hollis, Nicole | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/05/2023 | |
| Lopatosky, Joseph | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/27/2021 | |
| McCoy, Rodney | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/27/2021 | |
| Slotnick, Barry | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/31/2023 | |
| Vera, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/27/2021 | |
| Wachusett Ventures LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/15/2025 | |
| Alessandro, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/21/2025 | |
| Antico, Joan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/12/2024 | |
| Dennehy, Raymond | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/22/2021 | |
| Ellis, Sharon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/07/2019 | |
| Fournier, Theresa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/15/2023 | |
| Gray, Kimberly | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/23/2019 | |
| Kirchick, Joel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/27/2021 | |
| Lopatosky, Joseph | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/27/2021 | |
| Slotnick, Barry | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/15/2025 | |
| Vera, Steven | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/27/2021 |
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.