New London Sub-Acute: Staff Eval Failures Found - CT
The inspection, conducted August 21, 2025, was triggered by a complaint. Inspectors reviewed performance evaluation records for five nurse aides and found that two of them, identified in the report as NA #1 and NA #2, had no documentation of required annual reviews.
NA #2 was hired July 13, 2023. That means annual performance evaluations should have been completed in 2024 and in 2025. Neither could be located.
NA #1 was hired April 30, 2024. A probationary evaluation was completed on June 30, 2024. An annual review was then due on June 30, 2025. That review was not done.
When inspectors sat down with the administrator at 1:26 p.m. that afternoon, he confirmed that annual evaluations are supposed to happen every year. He also confirmed he could not find the records for either aide.
Five minutes later, at 1:31 p.m., the human resources representative offered a more detailed accounting of what went wrong, and it was a different explanation for each missing file.
For NA #1, HR said the 2025 annual evaluation had been due on June 30 but had been "overlooked and not completed." For NA #2, HR said she believed the 2024 review had never been completed by the previous Director of Nursing. As for the 2025 review for NA #2, HR said she had the wrong hire month recorded in her files, so the evaluation was never scheduled and never done.
Three separate failures. A forgotten deadline. A predecessor who apparently left without finishing required paperwork. A data entry error that knocked an aide's review off the calendar entirely.
The facility's own Certified Nurse Aide Evaluation policy calls for each aide to undergo an annual evaluation to assess performance, skills, and adherence to facility standards. The policy exists. The reviews did not.
CMS tagged the deficiency under F0730, which covers the requirement that facilities observe nurse aide job performance and provide regular training. The level of harm was cited as minimal harm or potential for actual harm. Inspectors noted the deficiency affected some residents.
What the evaluations would have caught, or corrected, or flagged about either aide's performance is not something the inspection report addresses. The report documents only that the reviews weren't there, that the administrator couldn't find them, and that HR's explanation for their absence was a combination of human error, institutional memory loss, and a wrong date in a personnel file.
The facility is located at 90 Clark Lane in Waterford.
The previous Director of Nursing, whoever signed off on staffing decisions and personnel files before leaving, is not named in the report. Neither is the administrator or the HR representative. What the report does name is the gap: two aides working in a nursing facility, caring for residents, for months or years beyond when anyone formally assessed whether they were doing it well.
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 2025-08-21 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: Official federal inspection data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
Editorial process: AI-synthesized regulatory data, reviewed for accuracy by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: July 2, 2026 · Our methodology
NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING in WATERFORD, CT was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 21, 2025.
The inspection, conducted August 21, 2025, was triggered by a complaint.
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.