How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Touchpoints at Bloomfield
140 Park Ave, Bloomfield, CT 06002 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 243-9591· 146 certified beds · avg 136 residents/day · certified since Mar 4, 1976 · 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 →
Part of chain: ICARE HEALTH NETWORK (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 21, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.25
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint F-0583
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. F-0925
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
View all 35 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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 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. · F-0550 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0610 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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). · F-0628 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Nov 21, 2025 | 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 |
| May 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint · F-0925 |
| Feb 3, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Feb 3, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Nov 4, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Nov 4, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0881 |
| Feb 27, 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. · from a complaint · F-0947 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · from a complaint · F-0693 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · from a complaint · F-0698 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Feb 27, 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. · from a complaint · F-0585 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · from a complaint · F-0730 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Oct 20, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Oct 20, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Oct 20, 2021 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (13 → 12).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 1 | 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityConnecticut averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.25
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.39
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.94
Connecticut average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50
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) | 3.25 | 3.80 | 3.95 | bottom 16% in Connecticut; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.39 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 12% in Connecticut; bottom 21% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.94 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 17% in Connecticut; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.20 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 3% in Connecticut; bottom 11% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 33.9 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 39% in Connecticut; top 22% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 20.0 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 17% in Connecticut; top 13% 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 2.99, RN 0.36, weekend 2.70.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (2.99 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Touchpoints at Bloomfield. 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 / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global World Investors | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 10% | 04/01/1999 |
| Krausz, Hersch | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 21% | 04/01/1999 |
| Premier First Investors, LLLP | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 10% | 04/01/1999 |
| Salazar, V. Robert | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 31% | 04/01/1999 |
| Sebbag, David | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 21% | 04/01/1999 |
| Wright, Christopher | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 04/01/1999 |
| Wright, Christopher | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/1999 |
All 7 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Icare Health Network — 12 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Touchpoints at Chestnut — East Windsor, CT · overall 3/5
- Touchpoints at Manchester — Manchester, CT · overall 4/5
- Trinity Hill Care Center — Hartford, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Westside Care Center — Manchester, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Mission Care at Holyoke — Holyoke, MA · overall 1/5abuse
- Bennington Health & Rehab — Bennington, VT · overall 2/5
- 60 West — Rocky Hill, CT · overall 5/5
- Chelsea Place Care Center LLC — Hartford, CT · overall 1/5abuse
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "How is pest control handled here, and when was the last treatment or inspection?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
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 34% 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 77 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bloomfield Center for Nursing & Rehabilitation | 0.5 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Seabury | 0.8 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall-South | 2.2 mi | Windsor, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall North | 2.2 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Saint Mary Home | 2.8 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Caleb Hitchcock Health Center | 2.8 mi | Bloomfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Chelsea Place Care Center LLC | 3.8 mi | Hartford, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Windsor | 4.0 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Hebrew Center for Health and Rehabilitation | 4.2 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| West Hartford Health & Rehabilitation Center | 4.3 mi | West Hartford, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Parkville Care Center | 4.7 mi | Hartford, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Riverside Health & Rehabilitation Center | 4.9 mi | East Hartford, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Capitol, CT — 65 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Touchpoints at Chestnut — East Windsor, CT · overall 3/5
- Touchpoints at Manchester — Manchester, CT · overall 4/5
- Trinity Hill Care Center — Hartford, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Vanderman Place — Willimantic, CT · overall 3/5
- Vernon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Vernon, CT · overall 5/5
- Westside Care Center — Manchester, CT · overall 2/5abuse
- Woodlake at Tolland — Tolland, CT · overall 3/5
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 075264.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).