Home / Connecticut / Torrington
215 Forest St., Torrington, CT 06790 · Nw Hills County · (860) 482-8554
57 certified beds, about 49 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1975
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075111 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 8, 2025, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 33 health citations since December 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $11,190 in the last three years; the largest was $11,190, and the latest is dated February 8, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.29 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.70 of those hours.
45.8% 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 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure facility staff provided adequate supervision to prevent Resident #1 from exiting the facility unattended.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interviews, and review of facility documentation and policies for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for fluid status, the facility failed to complete dehydration evaluations in accordance with facility policy and failed to notify the provider with the results of a dehydration evaluation timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #42) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from injury resulting from an instant hot pack.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews, the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled medications in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation and failed to have a system in place to keep an accurate accounting of controlled medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #252) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to ensure a physician order was in place for a resident who required oxygen therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the medication administration cart was appropriately secured during the medication administration pass while not within the line of sight of the nurse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility policy, review of facility documentation, and interviews for two of five sampled residents (Resident #4 and Resident #5), reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to ensure that the pneumococcal vaccine was administered as requested by the resident upon admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #18) reviewed for unnecessary medication, the facility failed to ensure monthly pharmacy medication regimen review recommendations were part of the clinical record.
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 grievances, the facility failed to initiate a grievance concern for a missing item.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for medication errors, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered in accordance with physician orders and failed to ensure the resident received the correct dose of a cancer treatment medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the environment was maintained in a clean, sanitary, and homelike manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident # 30) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure consistent conduct weekly wound monitoring for a resident with a pressure ulcer.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, facility assessment, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that staffing levels were adequate for (44) residents on 2 units in accordance with the plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility assessment, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff possess the competencies and skill sets necessary to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 medication storage room, the facility failed to maintain the medication storage room in a clean manner and for 1 of 2 narcotic refrigerator, the facility failed to ensure the narcotic refrigerator freezer was free from build-up ice, and for 1 of 2 medications carts, the facility failed to maintain the medication cart in a clean and sanitary manner, and the facility failed to secure a medication following a specialized services appointment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the kitchen, review facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy review and interviews for infection control, the facility failed to follow infection control guideline regarding discarding soiled gloves and failed to ensure isolation gowns were readily available for adherence to proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 sampled resident reviewed for misappropriation (Resident #15), the facility failed to implement the written policies and procedures for abuse to thoroughly investigate an allegation of misappropriation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for sampled resident reviewed for misappropriation (Resident #15), the facility failed to implement the written policies and procedures for abuse to thoroughly investigate an allegation of misappropriation to prevent further abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of policy and staff interview for one sampled resident (Resident # 20) reviewed for falls, the facility failed to revise the care plan timely to provide further falls and for.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 resident (Resident # 20) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to professional standards and within facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #20) reviewed for falls, the failed to ensure neurological testing was completed for a resident who sustained an unwitnessed fall and for one resident (Resident #30) reviewed for skin condition(s), the facility failed to ensure consistent weekly wound monitoring for a resident with non-pressure related wounds and failed to follow recommendations from a specialty service or hospital for a resident with a non-pressure related wound and for 1 sample resident (Resident # 41) reviewed for death, the facility failed to ensure that there was a written physician's order of RN May Pronounce Death when a resident death was anticipated.
Inspectors wroteBase clinical record reviews, facility policy review and interviews for 1 sample resident (Resident # 241) reviewed for hydration, the facility failed to monitor and record Intake and Output (I&O) according to the facility policy and for 1 sample resident (Resident # 9) reviewed for edema, the facility failed to monitor the resident weight according to the physician order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 sampled resident (Resident#26) reviewed for specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident's communication form to the specialized center was complete and the facility failed to ensure the licensed staff consistently reviewed the communication form after the resident received specialized services and the facility failed to ensure consistent monitoring and documentation of Intake and Output for a resident on fluid restriction who received specialized treatment and the facility failed to ensure a medication receive during specialized treatment was secure in the medication storage room or medication cart and the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for a resident receiving specialized treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, facility policy and interview, the facility failed to ensure mandatory annual training for all staff was completed for 2 Nurse Aides (NA #2 and NA #3).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interview for two of five residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medication for (Resident # 20), the facility failed to consistently monitor the resident's blood pressure according to facility policy and procedure and for (Resident # 241), the facility failed to address the pharmacy recommendation in a timely manner in accordance to facility practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 5 residents (Resident # 6 and Resident #29) reviewed for Pneumococcal immunization, the facility failed to develop a method to track and / or monitor immunization status, screen for eligibility and provide for Pneumococcal vaccination as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and procedures and interviews for one of three residents reviewed for skin integrity (Resident #15), the facility failed to develop skin interventions on the Baseline Resident Care Plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one of three sampled residents reviewed for skin integrity (Resident #15), the facility failed to implement preventative skin recommendations and failed to complete a weekly body audit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and review of facility policy, for one of one resident observed for wound care (Resident #23), the facility failed to follow infection control practices during a wound treatment and for one of fifteen bathrooms observed, the facility failed to ensure personal care items were stored in a safe and sanitary manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, interviews and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #11) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) and for 1 of 1 sampled residents reviewed for smoking (Resident #20), the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was coded accurately.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and interviews for one of three employee files reviewed (Nurse Aide #2), the facility failed to ensure a Nurse Aide (NA) performance evaluation was completed annually.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and interviews, for one of three sampled Nurse Aides (NA) reviewed for abuse prohibition inservicing (NA #2), the facility failed to ensure annual training for abuse prohibition was completed.
5 fire safety citations on file: 2 on February 8, 2025, 1 on October 4, 2022, 2 on December 12, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 8, 2025 | Fine | $11,190 |
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) | 3.29 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.87 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.85 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.75 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.8% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 57.1% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.84 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 3.47 on weekdays and 2.87 on weekends, 17% 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 3.37 in April to June 2025 to 3.29 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 | 3.29 | 0.70 | 3.47 | 2.87 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 49 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.48 | 0.74 | 3.69 | 2.97 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 46 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.37 | 0.70 | 3.53 | 2.95 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 48 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.37 | 0.66 | 3.46 | 3.14 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 50 |
| 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 | 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 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.9 | 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 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.6 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.8 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.4 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.8 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.9 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Wolcott Hall Nursing Center, Inc's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.0% 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. 90 eligible stays.
12.4% 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. 91 eligible stays.
6.9% 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. 56 eligible stays.
51.8% 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. 56 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. 72 residents counted.
2.9% 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. 72 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. 51 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: WOLCOTT HALL 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% | 03/12/1986 |
| Singh, Devika | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/10/2018 | |
| Foley, Brian | Corporate director | Individual | 03/12/1986 | |
| 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.