Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around December 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Glastonbury Center For Health & Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to submit complete and accurate PBJ staffing data to CMS, and the PBJ report showed a one-star staffing rating with no RN coverage and no licensed nursing coverage 24 hours a day. Review of schedules and punch detail found multiple shifts without an RN listed and missing punch documentation for several RN shifts, while the DNS and Administrator stated RN managers or the DNS covered some shifts and that prior ownership handled part of the PBJ submission.
Kitchen sanitation, food dating, and beard guard use: Surveyors observed undated refrigerated food items and juice pitchers, heavy buildup on kitchen equipment and surfaces, an uncovered grease bucket, and a Dietary Aide with a full beard working in food prep without a beard guard. The FSD stated food items should be dated before refrigeration and kitchen equipment should be cleaned daily, but he had not set up a routine cleaning schedule and was still familiarizing himself with daily operations.
Failure to file and resolve a grievance about incontinent care. A resident with bowel and bladder incontinence, fecal impaction, diarrhea, and urinary retention was reportedly left in a soiled brief during dinner and had to wait to be changed. The resident’s representative said the concern was brought to the evening nursing supervisor and a grievance was requested, but facility leadership and SW staff reported no grievance was filed or tracked.
Failure to care plan dysphagia and thickened liquid orders: A resident with dysphagia, impaired cognition, and a physician order for nectar-thick liquids had no comprehensive care plan interventions or goals addressing the swallowing disorder, and the bedside Kardex did not include the liquid consistency instructions. During observation, thin water was found at the bedside, and an LPN confirmed the resident should only have nectar-thick liquids and that the thin liquids should not have been there.
Failure to Offer and Provide Weekly Showers: A resident with post laminectomy and spinal stenosis, who was cognitively intact and dependent on staff for showers, did not receive a shower after admission. Nursing documentation showed only bed baths, with no record that showers were offered or refused. An NA assumed the resident could not shower because of a wound dressing and did not ask nursing whether showers were permitted, while the DNS confirmed there was no order prohibiting showers and that the wound could have been covered.
A resident with contractures and dementia was observed without ordered bilateral palm protectors in bed and in a wheelchair, despite a care plan and MD order for them to be worn at all times except for care. Staff gave inconsistent accounts about who was responsible for applying the devices, and no refusals were documented. A second resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and dementia had been trialing a right hand/wrist splint before hospitalization, but after readmission the record did not show an OT re-evaluation to determine continued use, and the resident was later observed not wearing a splint.
A resident with ESRD who received hemodialysis three times weekly had an AVF in the right upper extremity, but the physician orders and MAR/TAR did not direct or document AVF bruit and thrill checks every shift. Staff stated nurses were responsible for these assessments, yet the orders were incomplete. An observation also found no emergency kit in the resident’s room, and the DNS stated the kit should always be present for AVF bleeding or swelling.
Thin liquids were found at a resident’s bedside even though the resident had dysphagia and was ordered mildly thick nectar liquids. The resident’s FEES showed thin liquids were challenging and caused aspiration of residues, while thicker liquids were tolerated. An LPN verified the pitcher and cup contained thin water, and the RD, OT, and DNS all stated the resident should have only thickened liquids, including bedside water, unless otherwise ordered.
A resident with DM, CHF, and Parkinson’s disease was on a 2-gram sodium diet and had documented food dislikes and preferences, including no eggs and a preference for a banana with breakfast. Staff and the resident reported that eggs were repeatedly served anyway, and an observed breakfast tray showed scrambled eggs listed on the meal ticket while the tray contained toast, cereal, and juice. The FSD, RD, and dietary staff confirmed the resident’s dislikes were supposed to be entered into the system and honored, but eggs continued to appear on the printed ticket.
Improperly Contained Refuse Around Dumpster: A dumpster with a large opening on the side was observed with a moderate amount of debris, including dirty food containers, paper, and foil wrap scattered around the area. The FSD stated dietary staff were responsible for emptying garbage to keep the surrounding areas clear of debris, and he was still familiarizing himself with daily operations. Facility policy directed that areas around dumpsters and collection containers be inspected and maintained clean.
Failure to Complete Annual Performance Evaluations for Nurse Aides: The facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations were completed for 4 of 6 nurse aides reviewed. Records showed missing annual evals for multiple NAs, and leadership stated department heads and the DNS were responsible for completing and tracking the reviews on each employee’s anniversary date. The facility policy required annual performance reviews with manager and employee signatures.
Failure to Track Required Nurse Aide Annual Training: The facility failed to ensure nurse aides received and had documented at least 12 hours of annual in-service training. An LPN responsible for staff development said she had been focused on mandatory education, including dementia training, and did not have a system to track nurse aide education hours for 2024 or 2025. The ADNS and DNS also stated they could not verify that nurse aides met the minimum annual training requirement, despite the facility assessment listing required topics such as communication, resident rights, abuse prevention, and infection control.
A resident with multiple chronic conditions was mistakenly given another resident's morning medications after an LPN, distracted by assisting a physical therapist, failed to follow medication administration protocols. The LPN brought both residents' medications into the room, placed them on the bedside table, and administered the wrong set without proper verification, resulting in a significant medication error.
A resident with dementia and nutritional deficiencies experienced a significant weight loss over a short period, but the facility did not notify the healthcare provider as required by policy. Clinical records and staff interviews confirmed that the provider was not informed of the change in condition until weeks after the weight loss was identified.
A resident with dementia and an unstageable pressure ulcer required assistance with ADLs, but review of the clinical record showed numerous missing entries for personal care activities such as bathing, dressing, oral hygiene, transfers, and eating. Despite facility policy requiring timely documentation, nurse aide staff failed to consistently record care provided, and the DNS could not account for the missing documentation.
Incomplete PBJ Staffing Submission and Missing RN Coverage Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to electronically submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information to CMS based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data for the PBJ quarter of 10/1/24 to 12/31/24. The CMS PBJ Staffing Data Report for that quarter showed the facility triggered for a one-star staffing rating, no RN coverage, and a failure to have licensed nursing coverage 24 hours a day. Interviews with HR and the DNS indicated the prior owner was responsible for the PBJ submission for the beginning portion of the quarter, and the new staff did not have access to the prior payroll system. Review of nursing schedules for 10/1/24 to 10/10/24 showed multiple shifts without an RN assigned, including several day, evening, and night shifts. The DNS stated she worked every other Wednesday on the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift and confirmed she worked on 10/2/24 and 10/9/24, but punch detail was not available for those dates. The Administrator stated he was not aware of any shift without RN coverage and said RN managers would come in if needed. Review of Employee Transactions and Totals Forms identified RN names and dates but did not include punch details, and review of Punch Detail Forms showed missing punch detail for 10/6/24 from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM, 10/10/24 from 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM, and the Wednesday 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shifts on 10/2/24 and 10/9/24. The PBJ staffing policy was requested but not provided.
Kitchen sanitation, food dating, and beard guard use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen and failed to ensure refrigerated food items were dated. During a kitchen tour with the Food Service Director, surveyors observed a reach-in refrigerator next to the oven containing a pint-sized metal container of chopped onion/tomatoes and a large container of gravy, both undated. In the beverage refrigerator, 10 of 14 pitchers of juice were also undated. The tour further identified a large amount of dried white and brown buildup on the left side of the warming oven, a moderate amount of white buildup on the right side of the reach-in refrigerator, a large amount of brown buildup on the right side of the refrigerator adjacent to the stove, a large uncovered bucket of grease in front of the stove with an open grease funnel extending from the stove to the bucket, and a large amount of crusted brown buildup on the stove knobs and surrounding surface area. The facility also failed to ensure staff used beard guards according to infection control standards. During breakfast preparation, surveyors observed a Dietary Aide with a full beard approximately 3/4 to 1 inch in length working in the food preparation area without a beard guard. The aide stated he was unaware of any requirement for a beard guard and had never used one previously. The Food Service Director stated he would need to refer to the policy regarding beard guards and later identified that he was responsible for ensuring tasks were completed, but had not set up a routine cleaning schedule and was still familiarizing himself with daily operations.
Failure to File and Resolve Grievance About Incontinent Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to file a grievance and ensure a prompt response after a resident and the resident’s representative reported concerns about incontinent care. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including fecal impaction, functional diarrhea, and urinary retention, and was documented as incontinent of bowel and bladder, requiring maximum assistance with toileting and transfers. Facility notes also identified moisture associated skin damage to the buttocks and gluteal area, with orders for Triad cream after incontinent episodes and other skin-protection measures. The resident and the resident’s representative reported that, shortly after admission, the resident was left sitting in a soiled brief during the dinner meal and staff would not change the resident until after dinner. The resident stated this happened more than once and that if the resident did not go to the bathroom before a meal, the resident had to wait an hour and a half or longer to be changed. The resident’s representative stated that the concern was brought to the evening nursing supervisor and that the representative specifically asked for a grievance to be filed. Facility interviews showed no grievance was filed or tracked for the concern. The DNS, Administrator, ADNS, and SW all stated they were not aware of the complaint and had no grievance documentation for the resident. The DNS stated that if informed, she would have started a grievance form, initiated an investigation, and informed the resident and representative of the outcome, but she also stated she was never made aware of the complaint. The grievance policy required prompt efforts to resolve grievances, immediate notification of the grievance officer, investigation, tracking, and completion within 7 days, but no such process was documented for this resident’s complaint.
Failure to Care Plan Dysphagia and Thickened Liquid Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for Resident #36’s dysphagia diagnosis and failed to include interventions and goals to address the resident’s swallowing disorder. Resident #36 was admitted in August 2025 with diagnoses including dysphagia, pain in the left arm, malignant melanoma of the skin, and malignant neoplasm of the pancreas and bronchus or lung. The admission MDS identified moderately impaired cognition, set-up or clean-up assistance with eating, a mechanically altered diet requiring a change in texture of food or liquids, and signs and symptoms of a possible swallowing disorder, including holding food in the mouth or cheeks after meals and complaints of difficulty or pain when swallowing. A physician’s order dated 9/3/25 directed a house diet easy to chew with mildly thick (nectar) liquids, fruit plate allowed, and alternating bites and sips with throat clearing and re-swallowing after liquid intake. The care plan dated 9/11/25 did not identify interventions or goals for the dysphagia diagnosis, and the Visual/Bedside Kardex Report dated 9/22/25 did not include special instructions for mildly thick liquids. During observation on 9/22/25, a water pitcher and cup at the bedside contained thin liquids, and the LPN verified the liquids were thin and removed them. The LPN stated the resident had swallowing issues, should only receive nectar thick liquids per the physician’s order, and should not have thin liquids at the bedside. The DNS stated she would have expected a comprehensive care plan for dysphagia and for the thickened liquid order to carry over to the Kardex, and identified that the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM nurse aide was responsible for filling water pitchers. The facility’s policy required the interdisciplinary team to use the comprehensive person-centered care planning process to address resident needs and professional assessments and orders.
Failure to Offer and Provide Weekly Showers
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident was offered and provided weekly showers. Resident #12 was admitted in August 2025 with diagnoses including post laminectomy and spinal stenosis. The admission MDS identified the resident as cognitively intact, totally dependent on staff for showers, and needing maximum assistance for transfers, with shower transfers not attempted due to medical condition or safety concerns. The care plan identified self-care deficits and included assistance of one for showering and bathing. Review of the nurse's notes from 8/25/25 through 9/21/25 did not show that Resident #12 was offered showers or refused them. The nurse aide flow sheet showed bed baths on 9/8/25 and 9/15/25, but no showers from 8/25/25 through 9/22/25. Resident #12 stated during interview that he/she had not had a shower since admission, had to pay a hairdresser to wash his/her hair, would take a shower if offered, and could not stand for a shower or step over the shower or tub edge. Resident #12 also stated staff had not offered a shower. Staff interviews showed NA #4 did not offer a shower because she believed therapy had to assess shower safety first and because the resident had a wound dressing. NA #4 stated she assumed the resident could not shower and chose to give bed baths instead, without asking nursing staff whether showers were allowed. LPN #3 stated refusals must be documented, but no refusal was documented. The DNS stated residents were assigned weekly showers, that there was no physician order prohibiting showers for Resident #12, and that the wound could have been covered for a shower. The DNS also confirmed the record did not show a shower refusal or education regarding showers, and that only bed baths had been documented since admission.
Failure to Maintain Contracture-Related Splinting and Palm Protector Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident with contractures received bilateral palm protectors in accordance with physician orders. Resident #13 had diagnoses including contracture of the left hand and dementia, was severely cognitively impaired, and required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The care plan identified bilateral hand rolls in place at all times, and the physician ordered bilateral palm protectors at all times per tolerance except for care, with skin checks every shift. However, observations found the resident in bed without the palm protectors and later up in a wheelchair without them in place, and the devices were at the bedside during one observation. Documentation did not show any refusals for the palm protectors during the reviewed period. Interviews with nursing staff showed confusion about who was responsible for applying the devices, with one LPN unsure whether the resident was supposed to wear them and stating it was the nurse aides’ responsibility, while an aide stated she had to assist with applying them before the resident got up. Another aide acknowledged she did not check the care card and only noticed the devices when the resident was being prepared for lunch. The occupational therapy assistant confirmed the resident had contractures and increased tone and that the bilateral palm guards were recently added to the treatment plan to decrease further contractures. The facility also failed to ensure a resident with a known contracture was re-evaluated after hospitalization before continued use of a splint. Resident #52 had diagnoses including hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and dementia, and occupational therapy had been trialing a right hand and wrist splint to prevent further contractures. After the resident was hospitalized and then readmitted, the clinical record did not show an occupational therapy assessment to determine continued use of the splint. When observed later, the resident was not wearing a splint. The Director of Rehabilitation stated residents readmitted from the hospital, including those with contractures, were to be screened by OT, but could not recall whether this resident had been screened and said it should have been documented.
Dialysis AVF Monitoring and Emergency Kit Missing
Penalty
Summary
Safe, appropriate dialysis care/services were not provided for a resident with end stage renal disease who was dependent on hemodialysis three times a week and had an AVF in the right upper extremity. The resident’s admission evaluation identified intact cognition, moderate assistance with dressing, and the need for dialysis. The care plan included monitoring the AVF site access dressing and checking for a bruit and thrill daily and as needed, along with observing for signs and symptoms of infection or bleeding. Review of the physician’s orders from admission through 9/22/25 showed no direction to monitor the AVF for a bruit or thrill. Review of the MAR and TAR for the same period also failed to reflect AVF monitoring for a bruit and thrill every shift. Staff interviews indicated the resident left for dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday afternoons, and the DNS stated nurses were responsible for checking the AVF site every shift, checking for the bruit and thrill every shift, and documenting those assessments on the TAR. The DNS also stated the admission orders did not direct these checks and that the admission nurse did not enter all dialysis-related orders. An observation also found no emergency kit in the resident’s room. The DNS stated the expectation was that an emergency kit would always be in the room in case the AVF site started bleeding or swelling, and identified the kit as containing blue clamps and absorbent pads. During a later observation with the DNS, the kit was still not present, and the DNS stated it probably had not been moved when the resident changed rooms.
Thin Liquids Found at Bedside Despite Ordered Nectar-Thick Consistency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that fluids were served in the consistency ordered for a resident with dysphagia. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including dysphagia, pain in the left arm, malignant melanoma of the skin, and malignant neoplasm of the pancreas and bronchus or lung. A physician’s order directed a regular diet with pureed texture and mildly thick (nectar) liquids, later updated to an easy-to-chew diet with mildly thick liquids, with instructions to alternate bites and sips and to clear the throat and re-swallow after liquid intake. The admission MDS identified moderately impaired cognition, need for set-up or clean-up assistance with eating, a mechanically altered diet, and signs and symptoms of a possible swallowing disorder. The FEES report showed thin liquids were challenging and resulted in secondary aspiration of residues that migrated into the airway before a re-swallow could be triggered, while thicker liquids were consumed without pharyngeal residual or airway invasion. The resident’s care plan addressed risk for malnutrition and included encouraging fluids throughout the day and providing safe swallow strategies, but it did not identify interventions and goals for the dysphagia diagnosis. The SLP discharge summary stated the resident’s diet had been advanced to level 7EC with minced and moist meats and mildly thick liquids, and that the resident remained on a modified diet for maximum safety during oral intake. During observation, a water pitcher and cup containing thin water were found on the resident’s bedside table. The LPN verified both contained thin liquids and removed them. The LPN stated the resident should only receive nectar thick liquids and should not have thin liquids at the bedside. The OT, RD, and DNS all stated the resident should be served mildly thick nectar liquids, and the RD said all liquids, including bedside water, should be thickened unless an exception was written in the physician’s orders. The DNS also stated the overnight aide was responsible for filling water pitchers and should read the resident’s care card to ensure the liquid consistency matched the physician’s order.
Food Preferences Not Honored for Resident with Therapeutic Diet
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident #37’s food preferences were accommodated. Resident #37 was admitted with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, CHF, and Parkinson’s disease, and had a physician’s order for a 2-gram sodium regular texture diet. The Nutrition Screening and Food Preferences document identified that the resident did not like eggs, rice, spinach, pot pie, and soup, and preferred items such as toast, banana, muffin, pancakes, or waffles when available. The care plan also directed the facility to obtain, provide, honor, and monitor the resident’s food and beverage preferences and eating patterns. Resident #37 stated that eggs were being served every day and that he/she had repeatedly told multiple staff members that eggs were not liked. The resident reported that baked eggs were served for breakfast and were sent back to the kitchen. A nurse aide confirmed that the resident did not like the baked eggs served that morning, but was unsure whether the resident disliked eggs in general. The resident also stated that the representative had written on the weekly menu that eggs were not wanted and that a banana was preferred with breakfast. Observation of the breakfast tray showed scrambled eggs listed on the meal ticket, while the tray itself included toast, corn flakes, and juice. The ticket also noted no eggs, creating a mismatch between the printed meal ticket and the food served. The Food Service Director stated that resident dislikes should be entered into the electronic system so they would not appear on meal tickets, and that a plate of toast alone would not be an acceptable breakfast for the resident; an alternative heart healthy item or protein should have been served. The RD and dietary staff confirmed that the resident’s dislikes were in the system, but eggs continued to appear on the printed ticket, and the dietary aide stated she was unsure why this occurred.
Improperly Contained Refuse Around Dumpster
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure refuse was properly contained in outside dumpsters. During a tour of the outside grounds, a dumpster with a large opening on the side was observed with a moderate amount of debris, including dirty food containers, paper, and foil wrap scattered around the area. The FSD stated that dietary staff were responsible for emptying the garbage to keep the surrounding areas clear of debris, and that he was responsible for oversight but was new to the facility and still familiarizing himself with daily operations. Facility policy for Environmental Management directed that grounds, including areas where compactors, dumpsters, or collection containers are located, be inspected and maintained clean.
Failure to Complete Annual Performance Evaluations for Nurse Aides
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations were completed for 4 of 6 nurse aides reviewed. Review of employee files showed that NA #1, hired 6/16/22, had no annual performance evaluations on file for 2023, 2024, or 2025. NA #6, hired 6/6/24, did not have an annual performance evaluation on file. NA #17, hired 7/18/22, had no annual evaluations on file for 2023, 2024, or 2025. NA #19, hired 7/19/22, had no employee file or annual performance evaluations for 2023, 2024, or 2025. During interview, the Administrator stated that all employees receive an annual performance evaluation from the department head overseeing them and that each department is responsible for ensuring evaluations are completed annually based on hire date and placed in the employee file. HR #1 stated that department heads are responsible for completing annual performance evaluations for all employees in their departments on the employee's anniversary date each year. The DNS stated she was responsible for ensuring all nursing staff had annual performance evaluations in the month they were hired each year, that she tracked due dates on a spreadsheet, and that NA #1, NA #6, NA #17, and NA #19 were due in June and July 2025 but were not done. The DNS stated she was a little behind with getting the annual performance evaluations completed. The facility policy stated the performance review period is annual and that the manager and employee sign and date the performance review.
Failure to Track Required Nurse Aide Annual Training
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide nurse aide training of no less than 12 hours per year. Review of facility documentation, facility policy, facility assessment, and interviews showed that the staff development nurse was responsible for education and competencies for nurse aides, but after the change of ownership in October 2024 she had been working only on mandatory education, including dementia training for all staff, and competencies for nursing staff. She stated that the mandatory education and competencies took about 8 hours and that she did not have any sheets or spreadsheets tracking nurse aide education hours for 2024 or 2025. The ADNS stated she oversaw the staff development nurse and was responsible for checking post tests, but she also did not have a tracking system in place for 2024 or 2025 to verify that nurse aides received the minimum required 12 hours of education per year. The DNS stated that education was provided, but the facility did not tally the number of hours per nurse aide to ensure the minimum annual requirement was met. The facility assessment identified required in-service topics including communication, resident rights and facility responsibilities, abuse, neglect, exploitation, infection control, and required in-service training for nurse aides of no less than 12 hours per year.
Resident Given Another Resident's Medications Due to LPN Error
Penalty
Summary
A medication administration error occurred involving a resident with diagnoses including hypertension, depression, anxiety, and a history of acute renal failure. The resident, who was alert and oriented, was mistakenly given another resident's 9:00 AM medications. The error happened when the LPN, while preparing medications for two residents, was called to assist a physical therapist with the resident. The LPN brought both residents' medication cups into the room, placed them on the bedside table, and after assisting the resident, administered the wrong set of medications without verifying them. The LPN did not follow the facility's medication administration policy, which requires adherence to the six rights of medication administration. The medications administered in error included drugs for prostate enlargement, hypertension, stomach acid reduction, and blood thinners, which were not prescribed for the resident who received them. The incident was immediately recognized by the LPN, who reported it to the nursing supervisor. Facility documentation and interviews confirmed that the LPN failed to secure the medications and did not verify the correct medications before administration, directly leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Notify Provider of Significant Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely notification of a significant weight loss to the resident's healthcare provider for a resident with dementia and nutritional deficiencies. The resident's care plan identified a problem with nutrition and weight maintenance, and interventions were in place to assist with eating and provide dietary assessments. Despite a recorded weight loss of 24.1 pounds over 15 days, and a total loss of 25.1 pounds over approximately one month, there was no documentation that the physician, APRN, or PA were notified of this change when it was first identified. The clinical record and interviews confirmed that the providers were not made aware of the weight loss until weeks after it occurred. The facility's policy required notification of the resident, healthcare provider, and family/legal representative when there is a change in condition. However, review of records and staff interviews revealed that this notification did not occur as required. The APRN and PA both stated they should have been notified of the weight loss to review the care plan, and the DNS confirmed that provider notification should have taken place when the weight loss was identified. The deficiency was substantiated by clinical record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews.
Incomplete Documentation of Resident Care Activities
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the clinical record for a resident with dementia, nutritional deficiencies, and an unstageable sacral pressure ulcer was complete and accurate regarding personal care provided. The resident required assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) such as bathing, bed mobility, dressing, oral hygiene, transfers, bladder elimination, eating, and snacks, as documented in the care plan and nurse aide care card. However, review of the ADL flowsheet for a specified period revealed multiple instances where documentation was missing for these care activities across all shifts, totaling numerous blank entries out of the expected opportunities for documentation. Interviews and record reviews with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) confirmed that nurse aide staff were expected to document care provided according to facility policy, which requires documentation at the time of service or by the end of the shift. The DNS stated that care was provided as scheduled, but could not explain the missing documentation. Facility policy review further confirmed the requirement for timely and complete documentation of services provided in the resident's medical record.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 716 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 9 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Glastonbury
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civita Care Center At Salmon Brook | 2 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Touchpoints At Manchester | 3 mi | ★★★★★ | 16 | 0 |
| Westside Care Center | 3.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Manchester Rehabilitation And Healthcare Center | 3.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 17 | 0 |
| Riverside Health & Rehabilitation Center | 5.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 15 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Glastonbury Center For Health & Rehabilitation.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.