1 Emerson Drive, Windsor, CT 06095 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 688-6443· 180 certified beds · avg 104 residents/day · certified since Nov 1, 1975 · 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: COMPLETE CARE (85 facilities, chain avg rating 3.1★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 3, 2025 · F-0698 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Why it matters: Mistakes in dialysis care can quickly become life-threatening for residents with kidney failure.
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: Feb 3, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 37 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint F-0697
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 1, 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 |
| May 1, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Apr 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 3, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · from a complaint · F-0698 |
| Feb 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726 |
| Jan 14, 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 |
| Jan 14, 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 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0561 |
| Nov 19, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 19, 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. · F-0580 |
| Nov 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Nov 19, 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 |
| Nov 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Nov 19, 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 |
| Sep 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 |
| Sep 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 |
| Sep 13, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 15, 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 |
| 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 3, 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 |
| Oct 19, 2023 | 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 |
| May 23, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 23, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · F-0800 |
| May 23, 2022 | 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 |
| May 23, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0625 |
| May 23, 2022 | 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 |
| May 23, 2022 | 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 |
| May 23, 2022 | 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 |
| May 23, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0561 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 24, 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 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | 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 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791 |
| Oct 24, 2019 | B · Potential for 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 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2022 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 13 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 7 | 1 | J ▲ |
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 $14,728.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2025 | Fine | $14,728 |
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) | 2.93 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 5% in Connecticut; bottom 12% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.58 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 45% in Connecticut; bottom 50% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.69 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 5% in Connecticut; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.54 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 27% in Connecticut; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 27.4 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 19% in Connecticut; top 10% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 38.5 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 49% in Connecticut; top 44% 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 3.74, RN 0.75, weekend 3.44.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.74 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Complete Care at Kimberly Hall-South. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Des Capital LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| JRK Investments LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Klugman, Jacob | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| PC Gen Ct Opco Holdco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/15/2022 |
| PC Gen Ct Opco Topco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 11/15/2022 |
| PC Gen Ct Topco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 11/15/2022 |
| SMS 2021 Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 11/15/2022 |
| Stein, Shalom | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Sternbuch, Daniel | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Des Capital LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Gallagher, James | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Gallagher, James | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Hoch, Robert | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Hoch, Robert | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| JRK Investments LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Kimberly Hall South Propco LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Klugman, Jacob | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Lagana, Kristin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Lagana, Kristin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2022 |
| Messenger, Monica | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/02/2024 |
Showing 20 of 31 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 11 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Complete Care — 85 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 84 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall North | 0.0 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Seabury | 2.1 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Touchpoints at Bloomfield | 2.2 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Windsor | 2.3 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Bloomfield Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation | 2.6 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Caleb Hitchcock Health Center | 4.7 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Saint Mary Home | 4.7 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Riverside Health & Rehabilitation Center | 5.1 mi | East Hartford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Chelsea Place Care Center LLC | 5.3 mi | Hartford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Parkville Care Center | 6.2 mi | Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| West Hartford Health & Rehabilitation Center | 6.2 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Hebrew Center for Health and Rehabilitation | 6.3 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | 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 075237.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details