Connecticut ›Norwich

Norwich Sub-Acute and Nursing

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

93 West Town Street, Norwich, CT 06360 (opens Google Maps) · Southeastern Ct County · (860) 889-2614· 120 certified beds · avg 103 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · 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 →

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 22, 2023
4
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 4, 2026
$47,483
Fines, last 3 years
3.05
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →

⚠ 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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Jun 4, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Oct 16, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Aug 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Aug 13, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 23 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

View all 23 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 4, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 15, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 30, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 9, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 9, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 17, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0805
Mar 22, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 22, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 22, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 22, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 22, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0687
Mar 22, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921
Mar 22, 2023C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0838
Mar 22, 2023B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 22, 2023B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0732
Mar 22, 2023B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 21, 2020D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0554
Feb 21, 2020D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 21, 2020D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0610
Feb 21, 2020D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Feb 21, 2020D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 14, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 10).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2020
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
201910D
202050D
2023100E
202410D
202553G ▲
202611G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

2 fines totaling $47,483.

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.

DateTypeAmount / length
Oct 15, 2025Fine$15,106
Jun 9, 2025Fine$32,377

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityConnecticut averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.05
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.63
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.79
Connecticut average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityConnecticut avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.053.803.95bottom 9% in Connecticut; bottom 16% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.630.700.69top 45% in Connecticut; top 44% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.793.433.50bottom 9% in Connecticut; bottom 20% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.480.460.48top 33% in Connecticut; top 35% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)37.637.445.8bottom 46% in Connecticut; top 30% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)47.138.642.9bottom 34% in Connecticut; bottom 40% 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 3.33, RN 0.69, weekend 3.05.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.33 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

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: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Norwich Sub-Acute and Nursing. 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.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

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.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Mirlis Children TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%02/01/2022
Miller, JohnIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2017
Mirlis, EliyahuIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2022
Rose, NathanIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2022
Rose, NathanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2022

All 5 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Connecticut midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 38% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 25 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Apple Rehab Uncasville4.1 miUncasville, CT★★☆☆☆2/5
Douglas Manor11.0 miWindham, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5
Greentree Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center11.1 miWaterford, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Complete Care at Harrington Court12.0 miColchester, CT★★☆☆☆2/5
Apple Rehab Colchester12.0 miColchester, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Saint Josephs Living Center INC12.1 miWindham, CT★★★☆☆3/5
Fairview12.5 miGroton, CT★★★★☆4/5
Villa Maria Nursing and Rehabilitation Community13.0 miPlainfield, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5
Colonial Health & Rehab Center of Plainfield, LLC13.1 miPlainfield, CT★★★★☆4/5
Vanderman Place13.2 miWillimantic, CT★★★☆☆3/5
Beechwood Health & Rehabilitation Center13.2 miNew London, CT★★★★☆4/5
Harbor Village North Health and Rehabilitation Cen13.9 miNew London, CT★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Southeastern Ct, CT — 14 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.

All facilities in Norwich →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075079.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details