10 Loeffler Rd, Bloomfield, CT 06002 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 726-2000· 60 certified beds · avg 50 residents/day · certified since Jul 3, 1984 · Medicare only — not Medicaid certified
Certified for Medicare only. Medicare pays for short rehabilitation stays, not for long-term care — and this facility cannot bill Medicaid, which is what most families rely on for a long stay. Ask what a long-term stay here would cost and how it would be paid for. Who pays for nursing home care →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 25, 2025 · F-0656
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.
Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.
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: Jan 15, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 25, 2025 · F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
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: Jan 15, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 17, 2025 · 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 (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: Dec 15, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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 designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. F-0882
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 25, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Nov 25, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Nov 25, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Nov 25, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 25, 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. · F-0658 |
| Nov 25, 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. · F-0686 |
| Nov 25, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 25, 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. · F-0689 |
| Nov 17, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Nov 17, 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 |
| Jan 24, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 24, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents from being involuntarily separated — kept apart from other residents, kept out of their own room, or confined to their room. Isolating a resident this way is a form of mistreatment. · F-0603 |
| Jan 24, 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 |
| Jan 24, 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 |
| Jan 24, 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. · F-0657 |
| Jan 24, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 24, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| Oct 27, 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 |
| Oct 27, 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 |
| Oct 27, 2021 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Oct 27, 2021 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0640 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 8).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 10 | 3 | G ▲ |
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 →
2 fines totaling $47,216.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 25, 2025 | Fine | $15,106 |
| Nov 17, 2025 | Fine | $32,110 |
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) | 7.16 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 1% in Connecticut; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.90 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 2% in Connecticut; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 6.84 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 1% in Connecticut; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.20 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 4% in Connecticut; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 24.3 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 12% in Connecticut; top 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 21.1 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 19% in Connecticut; top 16% 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 5.91, RN 1.56, weekend 5.64.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.91 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Caleb Hitchcock Health Center. 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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson, Elizabeth | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2009 |
| Betts, James | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/09/2013 |
| Byrnes, John | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2009 |
| Cocheran, William | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2009 |
| Duncaster, Incorporated | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2009 |
| Hincks, Marcia | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/09/2013 |
| King, Sondra | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2009 |
| Koltenuk, Deborah | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2009 |
| Leake, Robert | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/03/2023 |
| Leake, Robert | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/03/2023 |
| Mortensen, Carol | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2009 |
| O'Brien, Michael | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2009 |
| O'Brien, Michael | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2009 |
| Shulansky, John | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/09/2014 |
| Spivey, Marie | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/09/2014 |
| Tracy, Daniel | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/09/2013 |
All 16 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloomfield Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation | 2.3 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Seabury | 2.5 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Touchpoints at Bloomfield | 2.8 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Saint Mary Home | 3.5 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Hebrew Center for Health and Rehabilitation | 3.7 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Ark Healthcare & Rehabilitation at Governors House | 4.1 mi | Simsbury, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| West Hartford Health & Rehabilitation Center | 4.5 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall-South | 4.7 mi | Windsor, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall North | 4.7 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Chelsea Place Care Center LLC | 5.1 mi | Hartford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| McLean Health Center | 5.2 mi | Simsbury, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Windsor | 5.8 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
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 075301.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details