Apple Rehab Uncasville
5 Richard Brown Drive, Uncasville, CT 06382 · Southeastern Ct County · 130 certified beds · avg 115 residents/day · certified since Dec 30, 2004
Part of chain: APPLE REHAB (20 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
⚠ The most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.
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 self-reported quality measures.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 14, 2024 · F-0697
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Mar 15, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, facility-wide · Aug 8, 2023 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
Severity (I): Residents were actually harmed and the failure existed throughout the facility. Rare and serious.
Corrected: Sep 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, facility-wide · Aug 8, 2023 · F-0725 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Understaffing means longer waits for help, missed care, and higher risk of falls and other harm.
Severity (I): Residents were actually harmed and the failure existed throughout the facility. Rare and serious.
Corrected: Sep 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 25, 2019 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Aug 27, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (42)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Jun 3, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · from a complaint |
| Feb 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint |
| Jan 22, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint |
| Jan 22, 2025 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · from a complaint |
| Sep 16, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 14, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. |
| Mar 14, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. |
| Mar 14, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. |
| Mar 14, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. |
| Mar 14, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 14, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Mar 14, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Mar 14, 2024 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. |
| Mar 14, 2024 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Feb 5, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2024 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint |
| Dec 1, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint |
| Aug 8, 2023 | ▲ I · Actual harm, facility-wide | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint |
| Aug 8, 2023 | ▲ I · Actual harm, facility-wide | 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. · from a complaint |
| Aug 8, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. · from a complaint |
| Aug 8, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint |
| Dec 7, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Dec 7, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. |
| Dec 7, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Dec 7, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide or obtain x-rays and other imaging tests when ordered, or did not promptly tell the ordering doctor the results. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. |
| Jul 25, 2019 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 9).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 14 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2021 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 5 | 2 | I ▲ |
| 2024 | 13 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 6 | 0 | D |
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)
1 fine totaling $16,065.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2024 | Fine | $16,065 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.28 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 18% in Connecticut; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.57 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 42% in Connecticut; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.96 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 18% in Connecticut; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 25% in Connecticut; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 35.2 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 46% in Connecticut; top 25% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 40.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 47% in Connecticut; top 46% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.18, RN 0.55, weekend 2.86. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foley, Brian | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 07/23/2004 |
| Foley, Brian | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/23/2004 |
| 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 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Norwich Sub-Acute and Nursing | 4.1 mi | Norwich, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Greentree Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 7.0 mi | Waterford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Fairview | 8.4 mi | Groton, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Beechwood Health & Rehabilitation Center | 9.1 mi | New London, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Harbor Village North Health and Rehabilitation Cen | 9.8 mi | New London, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| New London Sub-Acute and Nursing | 10.0 mi | Waterford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Complete Care at Groton Regency | 10.7 mi | Groton, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Mystic Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center, LLC | 11.3 mi | Mystic, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Avalon Health Care Center at Stoneridge | 11.5 mi | Mystic, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Pendleton Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 11.7 mi | Mystic, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Civita Care Bayview | 11.8 mi | Waterford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Mystic | 12.2 mi | Mystic, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
All facilities in Uncasville →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075438.