How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Vernon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center
180 Regan Road, Vernon, CT 06066 (opens Google Maps) · Capitol County · (860) 871-0385· 120 certified beds · avg 115 residents/day · certified since Jan 17, 1990 · 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: ATLAS HEALTHCARE (29 facilities, chain avg rating 3.6★)
5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Oct 11, 2024
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.99
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: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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 17 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0695
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
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. · from a complaint F-0609
View all 17 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, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0695 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · F-0849 |
| Oct 11, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| Aug 14, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Jun 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Jun 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0695 |
| Jun 30, 2022 | 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 |
| Jun 30, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| Oct 3, 2019 | 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. · F-0656 |
| Oct 3, 2019 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 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: 3.99
Connecticut average: 3.80
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.50
Connecticut average: 0.70
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.63
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) | 3.99 | 3.80 | 3.95 | top 30% in Connecticut; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.50 | 0.70 | 0.69 | bottom 32% in Connecticut; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.63 | 3.43 | 3.50 | top 28% in Connecticut; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.24 | 0.46 | 0.48 | bottom 14% in Connecticut; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 49.6 | 37.4 | 45.8 | bottom 13% in Connecticut; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 37.5 | 38.6 | 42.9 | top 46% in Connecticut; top 42% 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 4.13, RN 0.52, weekend 3.76.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.13 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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Vernon Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ct-3 Operations Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 07/27/2022 |
| JMH Family LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/27/2022 |
| JMH Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/27/2022 |
| MLS Family LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/27/2022 |
| MLS Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/27/2022 |
| SGS Family LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/27/2022 |
| SGS Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/27/2022 |
| Av SNF Realty Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Bak, Pinchos | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Bak, Pinchos | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Bak, Pinchos | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Campanelli, Tamlyn | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Campanelli, Tamlyn | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Ct-3 Opco Manager LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Ct-3 Opco Manager LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/15/2025 |
| Dougherty, Kristi | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Dougherty, Kristi | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Giannini, Kristin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Giannini, Kristin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
| Goldberger, Shlomo | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/27/2022 |
Showing 20 of 44 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 24 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Atlas Healthcare — 29 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.
- Village Green Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Bristol, CT · overall 2/5
- Hathorne Hill Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Danvers, MA · overall 4/5
- Haverhill Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Haverhill, MA · overall 2/5
- Masconomet Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Topsfield, MA · overall 3/5
- Nemasket Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Middleborough, MA · overall 3/5
- Oak Knoll Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Framingham, MA · overall 3/5
- Port Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center — Newburyport, MA · overall 2/5
- Shrewsbury Rehabilitation and Nursing at Southgate — Shrewsbury, MA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 28 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 many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 50% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 44 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 60 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complete Care at Fox Hill | 2.3 mi | Vernon, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Woodlake at Tolland | 3.5 mi | Tolland, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Manchester Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 6.9 mi | Manchester, CT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Westside Care Center | 7.3 mi | Manchester, CT | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Touchpoints at Manchester | 7.3 mi | Manchester, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Fresh River Healthcare | 8.3 mi | East Windsor, CT | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Touchpoints at Chestnut | 8.8 mi | East Windsor, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bickford Health Care Center | 9.2 mi | Windsor Locks, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Windsor | 9.4 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Evergreen Center for Health & Rehabilitation | 9.7 mi | Stafford Springs, CT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall-South | 9.8 mi | Windsor, CT | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Kimberly Hall North | 9.8 mi | Windsor, CT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | 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.
- West Hartford Health & Rehabilitation Center — West Hartford, CT · overall 5/5
- 60 West — Rocky Hill, CT · overall 5/5
- Amberwoods of Farmington — Farmington, CT · overall 3/5
- Apple Rehab Avon — Avon, CT · overall 3/5
- Apple Rehab Colchester — Colchester, CT · overall 1/5abuse
- Apple Rehab Cromwell — Cromwell, CT · overall 2/5
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 075334.