ConnecticutSalisbury

Noble Horizons

17 Cobble Rd, Salisbury, CT 06068 · Nw Hills County · 91 certified beds · avg 61 residents/day · certified since Jan 3, 1975

SFF Candidate

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
5
Serious findings on record
$151,542
Fines, last 3 years
4.14
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Feb 27, 2026 · F-0880

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.

Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Apr 10, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 27, 2026 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Apr 10, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 9, 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 (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Aug 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Apr 24, 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 (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jun 5, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 20, 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Nov 30, 2021 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (51)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Apr 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Feb 27, 2026▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 27, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Feb 27, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay).
Feb 27, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 27, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 27, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 27, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Feb 27, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 27, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Jul 9, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Apr 24, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Apr 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Mar 21, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Mar 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Mar 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months.
Mar 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 21, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Oct 20, 2021▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Oct 20, 2021E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 20, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (22 → 19).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202131G ▲
2024252G ▲
2026232K ▲

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.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

3 fines totaling $151,542, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 27, 2026Fine$126,965
Feb 27, 2026Payment Denial8 days from May 27, 2026
Jul 9, 2024Fine$14,050
Mar 21, 2024Fine$10,527

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityConnecticut avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.143.803.95top 28% in Connecticut; top 34% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.100.700.69top 12% in Connecticut; top 12% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.783.433.50top 23% in Connecticut; top 30% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.670.460.48top 16% in Connecticut; top 18% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)35.537.445.8top 48% in Connecticut; top 25% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)20.038.642.9top 17% in Connecticut; top 13% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 0.99, weekend 3.41. Staffing rating: 5/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Anquillare, JosephIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2024
Baldoni, DoreenIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Canuel, DavidIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Fidanza, JamesIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/30/2024
Gilland, PatrickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/19/2001
Golas, MargaretIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Large, MercedeseIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Latina, MichaelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/16/2024
Latina, MichaelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/16/2024
Martinez, CynthiaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
McGovern, KennethIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Moore, P WayneIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Oh, Jong GilIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Oh, Jong GilIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Pond, WilliamIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2018
Pond, WilliamIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2018
Pond, WilliamIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2018
Shahen, CynthiaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Thompson, WilliamIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Thompson, WilliamIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Geer Nursing and Rehabilitation4.7 miCanaan, CT★★★★★4/5
Sharon Center for Health & Rehabilitation8.3 miSharon, CT★★★★☆3/5
Timberlyn Heights Nursing and Rehabilitation13.4 miGreat Barrington, MA★★★★☆4/5
Fairview Commons Nursing & Rehabilitation Center15.7 miGreat Barrington, MA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Berkshire Rehabilitation & Skilled Care Center17.1 miSandisfield, MA★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Havencare at Litchfield Woods19.1 miTorrington, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Wolcott Hall Nursing Center, INC19.5 miTorrington, CT★★☆☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Salisbury →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075236.