240 Church St, Newington, CT 06111 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 667-2256· 180 certified beds · avg 152 residents/day · certified since Feb 1, 1979 · 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 →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: CIVITA CARE CENTERS (6 facilities, chain avg rating 2.0★)
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: 1/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Dec 19, 2025 · 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 (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Nov 22, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 17, 2026 · 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): 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 19, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 11, 2026 · 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): 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 16, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, pattern · Oct 31, 2024 · 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 (H): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Nov 19, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 12, 2023 · 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: Jan 23, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 9, 2021 · 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: Oct 21, 2021 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 56 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 F-0689
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2026 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 17, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 17, 2026 | 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 11, 2026 | ▲ 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Feb 11, 2026 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | 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 · F-0689 |
| Nov 18, 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 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Nov 12, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Nov 12, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 12, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
| Nov 12, 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 12, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 12, 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 |
| Nov 12, 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 12, 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 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| Nov 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Nov 12, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| Nov 12, 2025 | 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. · F-0883 |
| Nov 12, 2025 | 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. · F-0887 |
| Aug 28, 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. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Aug 28, 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 |
| Aug 28, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 7, 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 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | ▲ H · Actual harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · from a complaint · F-0712 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 31, 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 |
| Oct 31, 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 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaint · F-0655 |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly notify residents about the balance of money it holds for them, or failed to return those funds when a resident was discharged, evicted, or died. · from a complaint · F-0569 |
| Jul 15, 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 |
| Jul 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Apr 17, 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 |
| Apr 17, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility prohibited or discouraged residents from communicating with federal, state, or local officials. · F-0586 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | 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 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | 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 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | 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 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0758 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | 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. · F-0842 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | 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 |
| Sep 9, 2021 | ▲ 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 |
| Sep 9, 2021 | 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 |
| Sep 9, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (14 → 14).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 15 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 12 | 1 | H ▲ |
| 2025 | 21 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2026 | 5 | 2 | 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 →
4 fines totaling $120,238.
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 11, 2026 | Fine | $22,315 |
| Feb 11, 2026 | Fine | $25,662 |
| Oct 31, 2024 | Fine | $60,333 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | Fine | $11,928 |
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) | 3.39 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 27% in Connecticut; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.45 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 22% in Connecticut; bottom 30% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.12 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 33% in Connecticut; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.24 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 13% in Connecticut; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 49.3 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 14% in Connecticut; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 62.5 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 9% in Connecticut; bottom 19% 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 3.12, RN 0.41, weekend 2.87.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.12 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Civita Care Center at Newington. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ct6 Opco Holdco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 10/01/2024 |
| Esnh LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/01/2024 |
| JPNH LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/01/2024 |
| Pepper, Yehuda | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/01/2024 |
| Schwarcz, Elliot | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/01/2024 |
| 240 Church LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| 240 Church LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Altius, Christal | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Altius, Christal | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Ct6 Propco Holdco LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Esnh LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Everflow Healthcare LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Friedman, Samuel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| JPNH LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Kagan, Jeffrey | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Pepper, Yehuda | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Pepper, Yehuda | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Pepper, Yehuda | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Schwarcz, Elliot | Individual | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
| Schwarcz, Elliot | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2024 |
Showing 20 of 22 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 2 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Civita Care Centers — 6 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.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bel-Air Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 0.7 mi | Newington, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Grandview Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 2.4 mi | New Britain, CT | —/5 | abuseSFF | |
| Jefferson House | 2.4 mi | Newington, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Ledgecrest Health Care Center | 3.0 mi | Kensington, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Monsignor Bojnowski Manor, INC | 3.1 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Jerome Home | 3.4 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at New Britain | 3.7 mi | New Britain, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Maple View Health & Rehabilitation Center | 3.8 mi | Rocky Hill, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Cromwell | 4.3 mi | Cromwell, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| John L. Levitow Health Care Center | 4.5 mi | Rocky Hill, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Amberwoods of Farmington | 4.7 mi | Farmington, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Avery Nursing Home/Noble Building | 5.0 mi | Hartford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
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 075286.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details