Apple Rehab Watertown
35 Bunker Hill Rd, Watertown, CT 06795 · Naugatuck Vly County · 110 certified beds · avg 102 residents/day · certified since Apr 17, 1967
Part of chain: APPLE REHAB (20 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$25,058
Fines, last 3 years
3.40
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5
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 · Jun 18, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
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 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (36)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. |
| Mar 27, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 27, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 27, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 27, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. |
| Mar 27, 2026 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2026 | 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 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jan 16, 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 |
| Jun 18, 2024 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint |
| Jun 18, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. |
| Jun 18, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint |
| Jun 18, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jun 18, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 18, 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. |
| Jun 18, 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. |
| Jun 18, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 18, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 18, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Jun 18, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 18, 2024 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | 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. |
| Nov 30, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 4, 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 |
| Oct 4, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Sep 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint |
| Feb 1, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care. |
| Feb 1, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 6).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 11 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 12 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 7 | 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 $25,058.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2024 | Fine | $25,058 |
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) | 3.40 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 28% in Connecticut; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.47 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 28% in Connecticut; bottom 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.06 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 29% in Connecticut; bottom 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 28% in Connecticut; bottom 29% 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 (%) | 33.3 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 36% in Connecticut; top 33% 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 3.46, RN 0.48, weekend 3.12. 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: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foley, Brian | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 10/01/1985 |
| Foley, Brian | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/1985 |
| 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.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waterbury Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation LLC | 0.9 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Middlebury | 2.9 mi | Middlebury, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Bucks Hill | 3.8 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Cook Willow Health & Rehabilitation Center, INC. | 6.6 mi | Plymouth, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Cheshire House Health Care Facility & Rehab Center | 6.7 mi | Waterbury, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lutheran Home of Southbury INC | 7.7 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Glendale | 8.1 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Beacon Brook Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 8.2 mi | Naugatuck, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pomperaug Woods Health Center | 9.0 mi | Southbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Livewell Connecticut | 10.4 mi | Plantsville, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075181.