36 Firetown Rd, Simsbury, CT 06070 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 658-1018· 70 certified beds · avg 66 residents/day · certified since Jul 25, 1990 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 13, 2024 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.
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: Apr 26, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 36 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. F-0580
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
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
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 30, 2025 | 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. · F-0580 |
| Dec 30, 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. · F-0684 |
| Dec 30, 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. · from a complaint · F-0695 |
| Dec 30, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| May 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Mar 27, 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 |
| Mar 27, 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Apr 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · from a complaint · F-0756 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0758 |
| Mar 13, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Mar 13, 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 |
| Mar 13, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | 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 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · from a complaint · F-0883 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · from a complaint · F-0887 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. · from a complaint · F-0940 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · from a complaint · F-0947 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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. · from a complaint · F-0623 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · from a complaint · F-0625 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · from a complaint · F-0851 |
| Mar 13, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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. · from a complaint · F-0881 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| 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 | 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 |
| Dec 7, 2021 | 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. · F-0580 |
| Dec 7, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 7, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Dec 7, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| 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 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (18 → 4).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 22 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $16,039.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2024 | Fine | $16,039 |
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) | 3.82 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 38% in Connecticut; top 47% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.64 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 43% in Connecticut; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.53 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 34% in Connecticut; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 42% in Connecticut; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 40.7 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 34% in Connecticut; top 38% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 60.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 12% in Connecticut; bottom 22% 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 3.51, RN 0.59, weekend 3.25.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.51 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Ark Healthcare & Rehabilitation at Governors House. 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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fried, Akiva | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 17% | 10/15/2020 |
| Sodden, Aaron | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 17% | 10/15/2020 |
| Wiesel, Allan | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 17% | 10/15/2020 |
| Fried, Akiva | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Fried, Akiva | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Sodden, Aaron | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Sodden, Aaron | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Stein, Allen | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Stein, Allen | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Wiesel, Allan | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
| Wiesel, Allan | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2020 |
All 11 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McLean Health Center | 1.1 mi | Simsbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Caleb Hitchcock Health Center | 4.1 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Seabury | 6.0 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Bloomfield Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation | 6.2 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Cherry Brook Health Care Center | 6.3 mi | Canton, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Civita Care Meadowbrook | 6.5 mi | Granby, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Touchpoints at Bloomfield | 6.6 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Avon | 7.1 mi | Avon, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Hebrew Center for Health and Rehabilitation | 7.2 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Avon Health Center | 7.3 mi | Avon, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Saint Mary Home | 7.5 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall-South | 7.8 mi | Windsor, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
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.
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 075338.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details