COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Complete Care at Kimberly Hall North in Windsor, Connecticut has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns regarding the quality of care provided. While it ranks #91 out of 192 nursing homes in the state, placing it in the top half, it faces serious issues that have resulted in a troubling trend, with the facility showing an improving number of deficiencies, down from 12 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing ratings are below average with a turnover rate of 35%, which is somewhat better than the Connecticut average, yet the overall RN coverage is also rated as average. Notably, the facility has faced critical incidents, including a failure to accurately transcribe medication orders for a resident, leading to missed doses and re-hospitalization, as well as delays in providing pain medication to another resident. While there are some strengths, such as the facility's quality measures rating and a lower staff turnover, families should weigh these against the serious concerns regarding medication management and care quality.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Connecticut
- #91/192
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 35% turnover. Near Connecticut's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $8,278 in fines. Lower than most Connecticut facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Connecticut. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 32 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (35%)
13 points below Connecticut average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Connecticut average (3.0)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
11pts below Connecticut avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 32 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, observation, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 6 sampled residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews for the 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers( Resident #39) the facility...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 30 residents (Resident #67) review...
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 review of the clinical records, observations, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 75) revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, observations, and staff interviews for 6 of 6 residents observed during dining, ( Resident #9 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, observation, facility policy and staff interviews, the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 30 residents (Resident #141) reviewed for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 30 residents (Resident #90) reviewed for d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, review of policy and interviews and for 1 resident ( Resident #39), reviewed for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations of the noon meal and staff interview for 1 of 4 units (memory unit) residents were served their noon meal on dietary trays, the facility failed to provide a home like environment...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
8 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one of three sampled resident (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation and interviews for one of three sampled r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interview for two or six sample...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of facility's documentation and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #48) revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, review of facility's documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for two of three ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for two sampl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, review of facility documentation and interviews, the facility failed to have an Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) to monitor and perform infection surveillance. The findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2019
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and/or procedures and interviews for one of four...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of policy and interview for one four of sampled residents (Resident #119) reviewed for a...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and/or procedures and interviews for one of four...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and interviews for one of four sampled resident who were reviewed for assistance with ADL (Resid...
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 clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, review policy and staff interviews for one of four sampled r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, review of facility policy and interviews during initial tour of the dietary department, the failed to dispose of garbage properly. The findings include:
Observation on 9/23/19 a...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinincal record reviews, review of facility documentation and interviews for two sampled residents ( Resident # 46 and...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 35% turnover. Below Connecticut's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 32 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade F (14/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Connecticut, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North Staffed?
CMS rates COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the Connecticut average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North?
State health inspectors documented 32 deficiencies at COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH during 2019 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 27 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North?
COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by COMPLETE CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 150 certified beds and approximately 143 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WINDSOR, Connecticut.
How Does Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North Compare to Other Connecticut Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Connecticut, COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Connecticut. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North Stick Around?
COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH has a staff turnover rate of 35%, 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 Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North Ever Fined?
COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH has been fined $8,278 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Connecticut average of $33,162. 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 Complete Care At Kimberly Hall North on Any Federal Watch List?
COMPLETE CARE AT KIMBERLY HALL NORTH 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.