Home / Connecticut / East Haven
38 Talmadge Avenue, East Haven, CT 06512 · South Central Ct County · (203) 469-2316
90 certified beds, about 79 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1979
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075294 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 17, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 34 health citations since January 2022 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $6,370 in the last three years; the largest was $6,370, and the latest is dated January 29, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.72 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.42 of those hours.
43.9% 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of the medical record, facility documentation, observations, and facility policy for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #7, Resident #14 and Resident #20) reviewed for urinary tract infections, the facility failed to ensure the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) was notified when a medication was unavailable and therefore not administered.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for hospitalization, the facility failed to perform fingerstick glucose levels for a diabetic resident as indicated by the providers note and for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #7, Resident #14 and Resident #20) reviewed for urinary tract infections, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered per physician's orders. Additionally, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #65) reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions, the facility failed to identify a change in wound status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations, clinical record review, and review of facility policy for the only sampled resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #37), the facility failed to ensure a safe environment for a resident on continuous oxygen by allowing the resident (Resident #37) to self-administer a petroleum-based ointment into the nose without physician orders, proper assessment, or staff interventions. Staff failed to recognize and act on posted safety signage (Oxygen in use-no petroleum lotions), did not remove the flammable material from the room, and did not educate the resident on the danger of using petroleum products with oxygen therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, and facility policy for the only resident reviewed for nutrition (Resident #62), the facility failed to provide adaptive equipment per the physician's order for a resident with dysphagia.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, interview, and facility policy for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #31 and Resident #32) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), the facility failed to ensure that a redetermination was submitted to the appropriate state agency when a short-term approval expired.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of the medical record, facility documentation, observations, and facility policy for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #7, Resident #14 and Resident #20) reviewed for urinary tract infections, the facility failed to ensure the Medication Administration Record (MAR) related to medication administration contained accurate documentation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews, for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #2), the facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was free from physical abuse when the resident, who was dependent on staff for bed mobility and transfers, was discovered with multiple injuries of unknown origin including a lip laceration, forehead abrasion with swelling, and bruising to the back of the right hand and wrist, and later indicated a staff member struck him/her.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure medication orders were transcribed accurately and failed to ensure the resident was free from medication errors.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who had exhibited an inappropriate behavioral symptom and was transferred to the hospital for an evaluation, the facility failed to re-admit the resident after the hospital psychiatric physicians identified Resident #1 was not a risk of harm to self or others.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, interviews and facility documentation for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for a change in condition, the facility failed to report a change of condition to the physician timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for an injury of unknown origin (Resident #5), the facility failed to ensure that the resident remained free from injury during a Hoyer lift transfer.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #67) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's), the facility failed to provide podiatry services to a long-term resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #62) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to notify the provider when weights were not obtained per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #67) reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan indicating refusal of care, inappropriate behaviors, and accusations towards staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #53 and Resident #67) reviewed for bowel and bladder, for Resident #53, the facility failed to assess bowel and bladder continence status and failed to implement a plan to restore continence and for Resident #67 the facility failed to ensure the resident maintained bowel and bladder function.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, interviews, and review of facility policy for two of six residents (Resident #14 and Resident #62) reviewed for nutrition, for Resident #14, the facility failed to ensure a significant weight change was identified in a timely manner, and for Resident #62, the facility failed to obtain weights per the physician's orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interview for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for oxygen, the facility failed to follow the physician's oxygen order.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #67) reviewed for mistreatment, the facility failed to monitor and document targeted behaviors per the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 medication rooms reviewed for medication storage and labeling, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were kept under proper temperature controls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observation of the laundry area, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure a clean environment in the drying and folding areas.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record and interview for 1 of 5 sampled residents, (Resident #11) reviewed for PASRR, the facility failed to refer the resident to the appropriate state-designated authority for a level II evaluation following a new psychiatric diagnosis.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #1) who developed a urinary tract infection, the facility failed to ensure urinary lab testing per the MD orders.
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 a change in condition, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified when a resident was not provided with laboratory services and failed to ensure the physician and responsible party were notified when a resident refused to have blood drawn from the laboratory.
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 laboratory services, the facility failed to ensure resident had blood work completed in accordance with physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #1), who were reviewed accidents, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown origin was reported to the overseeing state agency within required time frames for a resident later identified to have sustained an injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #1), who was reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the nurse was notified following a compliant of pain for a resident who was later diagnosed with an injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #2), who was reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure a resident requiring assistance with locomotion using a wheelchair was provided leg rests.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #30) reviewed for foot care, the facility failed to provide podiatry services. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a progressive nerve disease, muscle weakness, and essential hypertension. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #30 was without cognitive impairment and required physical assistance with bed mobility and personal care. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/6/21 identified Resident #30 was a long-term resident and had an activity of daily living deficit. Interventions included to provide maximal assistance with bed mobility at least 4 times a shift. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #11) reviewed for an indwelling catheter the facility failed to ensure the resident's urine drainage bag was covered/not visible.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 3 of 7 residents (Resident #11, Resident #79 and Resident #179) reviewed for Advanced Directives, the facility failed to ensure a physician order was present that reflected the wishes of the resident or resident representative.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #30) reviewed for mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of physical mistreatment was reported to the State Agency prior to making the determination whether the allegation was credible.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 1 residents newly admitted to the facility (Resident #79), the facility failed to ensure the Interim Care Plan was completed within 48 hours of admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #11) reviewed for catheters, the facility failed to ensure the urinary tubing and drainage bag was below the level of the bladder for drainage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #52) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), the facility failed to ensure recommendations for a re-evaluation was requested in a timely manner.
6 fire safety citations on file: 1 on March 17, 2026, 2 on May 16, 2024, 3 on January 28, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 29, 2026 | Fine | $6,370 |
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) | 3.72 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.42 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.51 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.33 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.97 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.9% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 45.5% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.97 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 3.81 on weekdays and 3.51 on weekends, 8% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.85 in April to June 2025 to 3.72 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 | 3.72 | 0.42 | 3.81 | 3.51 | 3.2% | 0 of 90 | 79 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.72 | 0.41 | 3.78 | 3.57 | 5.0% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.85 | 0.43 | 3.93 | 3.65 | 4.0% | 0 of 92 | 77 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.85 | 0.44 | 3.98 | 3.51 | 4.8% | 0 of 91 | 78 |
| 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 | 15.6 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.8 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.1 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.8 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 32.3 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.3 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Whispering Pines Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.7% 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. 92 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. 121 eligible stays.
8.0% 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. 62 eligible stays.
50.0% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut58.9% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 40 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. 69 residents counted.
1.3% 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. 70 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 29 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: WHISPERING PINES REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bartolotta, Michael | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 08/12/2016 |
| Viteritti, Louis | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 08/12/2016 |
| Bartolotta, Michael | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/31/2018 | |
| Viteritti, Louis | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/31/2018 |
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.