111 Westcott Rd, Danielson, CT 06239 (opens Google Maps) · Northeastern Ct County · (860) 774-9540· 190 certified beds · avg 168 residents/day · certified since Mar 3, 2000 · 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: ★☆☆☆☆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 · Apr 16, 2025 · 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 (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: May 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 9, 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 (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: Sep 8, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 16, 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 (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 31, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 31 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 provide timely, approved x-ray services or have an agreement with an approved provider to supply them. · from a complaint F-0776
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
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 3, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 3, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide timely, approved x-ray services or have an agreement with an approved provider to supply them. · from a complaint · F-0776 |
| Sep 9, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Jun 16, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Jun 16, 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 |
| Apr 16, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Apr 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 16, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | E · Potential for more than 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 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Aug 15, 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. · F-0550 |
| Aug 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. · F-0580 |
| Aug 15, 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. · F-0658 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Aug 15, 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. · F-0695 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | 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. · F-0880 |
| Aug 15, 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. · F-0887 |
| Aug 15, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 30, 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 2, 2022 | 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. · F-0677 |
| Aug 1, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Aug 1, 2019 | 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 |
| Aug 1, 2019 | B · Potential for 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 17).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2022 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 18 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 7 | 3 | J ▲ |
| 2026 | 2 | 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 $14,015.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2025 | Fine | $14,015 |
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) | 3.41 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 30% in Connecticut; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.43 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 18% in Connecticut; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.97 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 20% in Connecticut; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.25 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 16% in Connecticut; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 34.3 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 40% in Connecticut; top 22% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 34.8 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 42% in Connecticut; top 38% 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 0.48, weekend 3.25.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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Davis Place. 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 - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fisher, Martha | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 24% | 07/17/2022 |
| Fisher, Shimshon | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 51% | 10/01/2014 |
| Krohn, Simcha | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 25% | 07/17/2022 |
| Alessandro, Joseph | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/15/2014 |
| Alessandro, Joseph | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/15/2014 |
| Fisher, Shimshon | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/17/2022 |
| Guntulis, Troy | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/28/2023 |
| Guntulis, Troy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/28/2023 |
| Rotando, Ashley | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2022 |
| Rotando, Ashley | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2022 |
| Stuart, Barbara | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2021 |
| Stuart, Barbara | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2021 |
All 12 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pierce Memorial Baptist Home, INC. | 4.2 mi | Brooklyn, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Westview Health Care Center | 5.0 mi | Dayville, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Matulaitis Rehabilitation & Skilled Care | 8.2 mi | Putnam, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Colonial Health & Rehab Center of Plainfield, LLC | 9.1 mi | Plainfield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Villa Maria Nursing and Rehabilitation Community | 9.3 mi | Plainfield, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Bayberry Commons | 13.2 mi | Pascoag, RI | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Overlook Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 13.3 mi | Pascoag, RI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Crystal Lake Rehabilitation and Care Center | 13.3 mi | Pascoag, RI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Alpine Nursing Home INC | 14.6 mi | Coventry, RI | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Lanessa Extended Care | 15.7 mi | Webster, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Webster Manor Rehabilitation & Health Care Center | 15.7 mi | Webster, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Greenville Operations Ri LLC DBA Greenville Skille | 16.1 mi | Greenville, RI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Northeastern Ct, CT — 8 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 075423.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details