Norwich Sub-Acute and Nursing
93 West Town Street, Norwich, CT 06360 · Southeastern Ct County · 120 certified beds · avg 103 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5
⚠ The most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.
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)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 4, 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Jun 4, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 15, 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Oct 16, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 30, 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Aug 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Aug 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (23)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 15, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jul 30, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| May 17, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · from a complaint |
| Mar 22, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The 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 22, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The 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. |
| Mar 22, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 21, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. |
| Feb 21, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 21, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 21, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Feb 21, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 14, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 10).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2020 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 5 | 3 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 1 | 1 | 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
2 fines totaling $47,483.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 15, 2025 | Fine | $15,106 |
| Jun 9, 2025 | Fine | $32,377 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | Connecticut avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.05 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 9% in Connecticut; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.63 | 0.70 | 0.69 | top 45% in Connecticut; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.79 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 9% in Connecticut; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.48 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 33% in Connecticut; top 35% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 37.6 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 46% in Connecticut; top 30% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 47.1 | 38.6 | 42.9 | bottom 34% in Connecticut; bottom 40% 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 3.33, RN 0.69, weekend 3.05. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mirlis Children Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 02/01/2022 |
| Miller, John | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2017 |
| Mirlis, Eliyahu | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2022 |
| Rose, Nathan | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2022 |
| Rose, Nathan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2022 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you handle residents who need modified food textures, and how do you make those meals appetizing?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "What choices do residents have over their daily schedule, like meal times, bathing, and activities?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple Rehab Uncasville | 4.1 mi | Uncasville, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Douglas Manor | 11.0 mi | Windham, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Greentree Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 11.1 mi | Waterford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Complete Care at Harrington Court | 12.0 mi | Colchester, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Colchester | 12.0 mi | Colchester, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Saint Josephs Living Center INC | 12.1 mi | Windham, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Fairview | 12.5 mi | Groton, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Villa Maria Nursing and Rehabilitation Community | 13.0 mi | Plainfield, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Colonial Health & Rehab Center of Plainfield, LLC | 13.1 mi | Plainfield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Vanderman Place | 13.2 mi | Willimantic, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Beechwood Health & Rehabilitation Center | 13.2 mi | New London, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Harbor Village North Health and Rehabilitation Cen | 13.9 mi | New London, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075079.