Vanderman Place
595 Valley Street, Willimantic, CT 06226 · Capitol County · 124 certified beds · avg 104 residents/day · certified since Mar 15, 2000
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.90
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5
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)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 18, 2020 · 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: Oct 30, 2020 (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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| May 23, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| May 23, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| May 23, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| May 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| May 23, 2025 | 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. |
| May 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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). |
| May 23, 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 |
| May 23, 2025 | 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. |
| May 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 1, 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 |
| May 1, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · from a complaint |
| Mar 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint |
| Dec 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 11, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Dec 11, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint |
| May 2, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. |
| May 2, 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. |
| May 2, 2023 | 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. |
| May 2, 2023 | 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 2, 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | D · Potential for 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| May 2, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | 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. |
| May 2, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not report COVID-19 data to residents and their families as required. Facilities must keep residents and families informed about COVID-19 cases. |
| May 2, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. |
| May 2, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| May 2, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | ▲ 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. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 18, 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. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | 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. |
| Sep 18, 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. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | 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. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Sep 18, 2020 | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (20 → 10).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 14 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 20 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 14 | 0 | F |
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)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
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) | 3.90 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 34% in Connecticut; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.47 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 28% in Connecticut; bottom 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.64 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 28% in Connecticut; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.27 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 24% in Connecticut; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 33.0 | 37.4 | 45.8 | top 34% in Connecticut; top 20% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 28.6 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 30% in Connecticut; top 26% 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 4.01, RN 0.49, weekend 3.74. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| 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 | 52% | 07/17/2022 |
| Krohn, Simcha | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 24% | 07/17/2022 |
| Affainie, Ursula | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/17/2022 |
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?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saint Josephs Living Center INC | 2.2 mi | Windham, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Douglas Manor | 3.6 mi | Windham, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Mansfield Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation | 5.5 mi | Storrs Mansfield, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Complete Care at Harrington Court | 11.0 mi | Colchester, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Apple Rehab Colchester | 11.1 mi | Colchester, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Norwich Sub-Acute and Nursing | 13.2 mi | Norwich, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Marlborough Health & Rehabilitation Center | 13.5 mi | Marlborough, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Woodlake at Tolland | 14.2 mi | Tolland, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Fox Hill | 14.3 mi | Vernon, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pierce Memorial Baptist Home, INC. | 15.2 mi | Brooklyn, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Vernon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 15.8 mi | Vernon, CT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Colonial Health & Rehab Center of Plainfield, LLC | 16.3 mi | Plainfield, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
All facilities in Willimantic →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 075425.