292 Thorpe Avenue, Meriden, CT 06450 (opens Google Maps) · Lower Ct River Vly County · (203) 237-1206· 60 certified beds · avg 58 residents/day · certified since Oct 1, 1991 · 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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jul 8, 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 (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: Jul 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 23, 2026 · F-0760 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Why it matters: A serious medication error can cause real harm, hospitalization, or worse.
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: Jul 10, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has plan of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 30, 2026 · F-0692
The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.
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: May 10, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 20 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint F-0760
The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. F-0692
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 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. · F-0658 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Jul 8, 2024 | ▲ 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 |
| Jul 8, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. · F-0940 |
| Jul 8, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0947 |
| Jul 8, 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 |
| Jul 8, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 15, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0607 |
| Aug 15, 2022 | 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. · F-0609 |
| Aug 15, 2022 | 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 |
| Aug 15, 2022 | 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 |
| Aug 15, 2022 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 9).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 5 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2026 | 10 | 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 →
2 fines totaling $83,947.
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 30, 2026 | Fine | $70,320 |
| Jul 8, 2024 | Fine | $13,627 |
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) | 4.34 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 22% in Connecticut; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 30% in Connecticut; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.86 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 22% in Connecticut; top 27% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 41% in Connecticut; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.5 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 43% in Connecticut; top 32% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 10.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 3% in Connecticut; top 4% 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 3.87, RN 0.66, weekend 3.44.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.87 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Connecticut Baptist Homes, INC. 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 - Church related
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avena, Robert | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| Doyle, Richard | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| Jones, David | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| Lewis, Margaret | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| McMunn, William | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| Morse, Mary Patricia | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/05/2005 |
| Morse, Mary Patricia | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/05/2005 |
| Morse, Mary Patricia | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/05/2005 |
| Riggs, Harry | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| Sarrazin, Marcia | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| Scott, Hopeton | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| Stevens, David | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| Stevens, Sandra | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
| Young, Peter | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2020 |
All 14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple Rehab Coccomo | 0.6 mi | Meriden, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Complete Care at Meriden | 1.3 mi | Meriden, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Meriden Health and Rehab | 2.6 mi | Meriden, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Silver Springs Care Center | 2.7 mi | Meriden, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Curtis Home St Elizabeth Center, the | 2.8 mi | Meriden, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Bradley Home Infirmary/Pavilion | 3.0 mi | Meriden, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Wadsworth Glen Health Care and Rehabilitation Cent | 4.8 mi | Middletown, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Regency House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 4.9 mi | Wallingford, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Twin Maples Healthcare, INC | 5.1 mi | Durham, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Middletown | 5.4 mi | Middletown, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Masonicare Health Center | 5.8 mi | Wallingford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Water's Edge Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 6.0 mi | Middletown, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Lower Ct River Vly, CT — 17 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 075352.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details