POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Pomperaug Woods Health Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is decent and slightly above average among nursing homes. It ranks #75 out of 192 facilities in Connecticut, placing it in the top half of state facilities, and #11 out of 22 in Naugatuck Valley County, meaning only ten local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, increasing from 6 issues in 2023 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5-star rating and RN coverage better than 86% of facilities, but staff turnover is concerning at 49%. The facility has accumulated $20,872 in fines, which is higher than 92% of Connecticut facilities, suggesting compliance issues. However, there are notable weaknesses. For example, a serious incident occurred where a resident fell and sustained a major injury because the facility did not follow their care plan. In another case, a transfer was performed incorrectly, leading to potential harm for a resident. Additionally, cleanliness in the kitchen was found lacking, with dirty equipment and expired food items, which raises concerns about overall hygiene standards. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and RN coverage, families should be mindful of the facility's compliance issues and specific incidents of care failures.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Connecticut
- #75/192
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $20,872 in fines. Higher than 52% of Connecticut facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 74 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Connecticut nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Connecticut avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
8 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 3 of 5 sampled residents (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 sampled resident (Resident #22) r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #16), the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility documentation, the facility failed to maintain refrigerator and dishwasher temperature logs and failed to ensure storage containers were clean. The...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews the facility failed to implement appropriate plans of action to correct quality deficiencies once identified through Quality A...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff were provided Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) gowns while sorting and washing soiled linens.
On 10/15/2024 at 11:00 AM inte...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, review of facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to store personal care items in a clean and sanitary manner in rooms with a shared bathroom. The findings include:...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, review of the clinical record and facility policy for 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #11 a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interview for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #11 and Resident #21) observed for medica...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews during a review of the facility medication storage rooms and carts, for Resident #2 and Resident #3, and genera...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0802
(Tag F0802)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on tour of the Dietary Department and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing to carry out the functions for cleaning the kitchen.
Tour of the Dietary Department on 4/1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on tour of the Dietary Department and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen and equipment was maintained in a sanitary manner. The findings include:
Tour of the Dietary Depa...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 16 sampled residents (Resident #9) reviewed for advance...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $20,872 in fines. Higher than 94% of Connecticut facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
About This Facility
What is Pomperaug Woods's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Connecticut, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Pomperaug Woods Staffed?
CMS rates POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Connecticut average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Pomperaug Woods?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER during 2023 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 12 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Pomperaug Woods?
POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 37 certified beds and approximately 30 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SOUTHBURY, Connecticut.
How Does Pomperaug Woods Compare to Other Connecticut Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Connecticut, POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pomperaug Woods?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Pomperaug Woods Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Connecticut. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Pomperaug Woods Stick Around?
POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 49%, which is about average for Connecticut nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Pomperaug Woods Ever Fined?
POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER has been fined $20,872 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Connecticut average of $33,288. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Pomperaug Woods on Any Federal Watch List?
POMPERAUG WOODS HEALTH CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.