5 Richard Brown Drive, Uncasville, CT 06382 (opens Google Maps) · Southeastern Ct County · (860) 848-8466· 130 certified beds · avg 115 residents/day · certified since Dec 30, 2004 · 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★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
⚠ 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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Mar 15, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, widespread · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was widespread: a systemic or pervasive problem. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Sep 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, widespread · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was widespread: a systemic or pervasive problem. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Sep 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Aug 27, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 42 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 F-0550
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 F-0554
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Jun 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0554 |
| Feb 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 10, 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 |
| Jan 22, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0658 |
| Jan 22, 2025 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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 · F-0836 |
| Sep 16, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Mar 14, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Mar 14, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Mar 14, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0881 |
| Mar 14, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Mar 14, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 14, 2024 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Mar 14, 2024 | 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 14, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0623 |
| Mar 14, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Feb 5, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0658 |
| Feb 5, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Feb 5, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Dec 1, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0600 |
| Aug 8, 2023 | ▲ I · Actual harm, widespread | 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 · F-0600 |
| Aug 8, 2023 | ▲ I · Actual harm, widespread | 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 · F-0725 |
| Aug 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 · F-0711 |
| Aug 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Dec 7, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Dec 7, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0727 |
| Dec 7, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 7, 2021 | 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 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0578 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | 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 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0777 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0880 |
| Jul 25, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0690 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 9).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $16,065.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2024 | Fine | $16,065 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 3.28 | 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 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 3.18, RN 0.55, weekend 2.86.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.18 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Apple Rehab Uncasville. 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.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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% | 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 |
All 6 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
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.
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.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| 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 →
CMS records place this facility in Southeastern Ct, CT — 14 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
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 075438.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details