How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Apple Rehab Farmington Valley
269 Farmington Ave, Plainville, CT 06062 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 747-1637· 160 certified beds · avg 132 residents/day · certified since Sep 30, 1982 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: APPLE REHAB (20 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 3, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
—
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 39 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. F-0851
The facility hired someone with an official finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft against them. Facilities are not allowed to employ people with such findings. F-0606
View all 39 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility hired someone with an official finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft against them. Facilities are not allowed to employ people with such findings. · F-0606 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Apr 28, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Nov 14, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint · F-0804 |
| Oct 25, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Sep 5, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726 |
| Sep 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Sep 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0695 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit. · F-0711 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not properly hold, secure, and manage residents' personal money that was deposited with it for safekeeping. Facilities holding residents' funds must keep careful, honest accounts. · F-0568 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Mar 8, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · F-0602 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610 |
| Feb 27, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (18 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 22
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 22 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | F |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityConnecticut averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: Not reported
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: Not reported
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: Not reported
Connecticut average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | — | 3.80 | 3.95 | — |
| Registered Nurse hours | — | 0.70 | 0.69 | — |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | — | 3.43 | 3.50 | — |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | — | 0.46 | 0.48 | — |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 44.1 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 23% in Connecticut; top 48% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 36% in Connecticut; top 33% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total —, RN —, weekend —.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (— here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Apple Rehab Farmington Valley. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Regional context: $525.78/day — Connecticut statewide average for a semi-private nursing-facility room, September 30, 2025. This is a historical regional figure, not this facility's price or a prediction. View the OPM source.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foley, Brian | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 02/01/1988 |
| Foley, Brian | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2004 |
| Singh, Devika | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/10/2018 |
| Vess, Ryan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/15/2013 |
| Vess, Ryan | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/15/2013 |
| Vess, Ryan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/15/2013 |
All 6 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Apple Rehab — 20 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Apple Rehab Guilford — Guilford, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Apple Rehab Laurel Woods — East Haven, CT · overall 2/5
- Apple Rehab Middletown — Middletown, CT · overall 3/5
- Apple Rehab Mystic — Mystic, CT · overall 2/5
- Apple Rehab Rocky Hill — Rocky Hill, CT · overall 2/5
- Apple Rehab Saybrook — Old Saybrook, CT · overall 3/5
- Apple Rehab Shelton Lakes — Shelton, CT · overall 2/5
- Apple Rehab Uncasville — Uncasville, CT · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 19 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
- "How do you screen job applicants for past findings of abuse, neglect, or theft before hiring?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 44% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 81 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Village Green Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 2.6 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Monsignor Bojnowski Manor, INC | 2.9 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Jerome Home | 3.0 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Civita Care Sheriden Woods | 3.5 mi | Bristol, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Grandview Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 3.9 mi | New Britain, CT | —/5 | abuseSFF | |
| Amberwoods of Farmington | 4.2 mi | Farmington, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pines at Bristol for Nursing & Rehabilitation, the | 4.6 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at New Britain | 4.6 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Ingraham Manor Rehab and Nursing | 4.9 mi | Bristol, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at West Hartford | 5.6 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Ledgecrest Health Care Center | 5.8 mi | Kensington, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Civita Care Center at Newington | 6.0 mi | Newington, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Capitol, CT — 65 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Apple Rehab Rocky Hill — Rocky Hill, CT · overall 2/5
- Ark Healthcare & Rehabilitation at Governors House — Simsbury, CT · overall 4/5
- Autumn Lake Healthcare at Cromwell — Cromwell, CT · overall 4/5
- Autumn Lake Healthcare at Windsor — Windsor, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Avery Nursing Home/Noble Building — Hartford, CT · overall 1/5
- Avon Health Center — Avon, CT · overall 2/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075044.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).