New London Sub-Acute: EMR Training Failures - CT
The nursing assistant, identified in inspection records as NA #6, was asked during the March 24 inspection to access the electronic medical record for Resident #84, a patient with documented ambulation and supervision requirements. NA #6 said she didn't know how to use the facility's tablet device to get there. She also couldn't remember Resident #84's mealtime guidelines from memory.
LPN #1 retrieved the information instead, using the computer on the medication cart, and then walked NA #6 through the steps herself. LPN #1 told inspectors that NA #6 should have been able to do this on her own and that she needed additional training.
The registered nurse supervisor on duty, RN #5, said the same thing. She told inspectors that NA #6 should have had the knowledge and competencies to access resident-specific information in the EMR, that nursing staff had been trained on the technology, and that she couldn't explain why NA #6 couldn't operate the device. She said she would notify the Director of Nursing Services so additional training could be arranged.
The DNS, interviewed nine minutes later at 10:51 a.m., said the problem wasn't limited to NA #6. A second nursing assistant, NA #9, also lacked the ability to access care-specific information for another resident, Resident #57. The DNS said both aides had attended a mandatory four-hour class when the facility switched to its new EMR system in June 2024. Staff were trained to access resident information through tablets, laptops, or touch-screen wall monitors installed throughout the units. He said he would have expected a charge nurse or supervisor to notify him if an aide couldn't operate the system, and that if he'd known, he would have provided direct education. He said he now needed to schedule another EMR training for nursing assistant staff.
When inspectors asked for a written policy on EMR training for nursing staff, none was provided.
What the inspection describes is a gap between what the facility documented and what two aides could actually do on the floor. The DNS said the training happened. The training records presumably exist. But on the morning inspectors asked NA #6 to look up a resident's ambulation status, she couldn't do it, and nobody at the supervisory level could account for why.
The ambulation status and supervision level for a resident aren't incidental details. They determine how staff approach a resident during transfers, walks to the dining room, trips to the bathroom. Mealtime guidelines, which NA #6 also couldn't recall, can govern whether a resident receives thickened liquids, needs assistance swallowing, or requires a specific positioning protocol. These are the data points that separate individualized care from guesswork.
The facility has tablet devices, laptops, and wall-mounted touch screens on the units. The infrastructure exists. The June 2024 training happened, according to the DNS. But in March 2025, two nursing assistants couldn't use any of it when asked, and the supervising RN on duty couldn't say why.
The DNS told inspectors he needed to schedule another training. Whether NA #6 and NA #9 received it, and whether anyone verified afterward that they could actually navigate the system, the inspection report doesn't say. What it does say is that when Resident #84 needed someone to know their care requirements on a Tuesday morning in March, the person assigned to their care had to ask someone else to find out.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for New London Sub-acute and Nursing from 2025-03-27 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Corrections: We strive for accuracy in everything we publish. If you believe any fact in this article is incorrect, please contact us with details, and we will review and correct it promptly.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: November 2, 2026 · Our methodology
NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING in WATERFORD, CT was cited for violations during a health inspection on March 27, 2025.
NA #6 said she didn't know how to use the facility's tablet device to get there.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.