Grandview Rehab: Agency Nurses Worked Without Background Checks - CT
Federal inspectors flagged the violation on October 22, 2025, following a complaint inspection. The finding covered two registered nurses, identified in records as RN #1 and RN #3, both placed at Grandview through a contracted staffing agency called Nursing Scheduling Agency, or NSA. Neither had a completed background check on file when inspectors asked to see personnel records.
The agency had only started its contract with Grandview on September 18, 2025. Within days, nurses were already on the floor covering shifts.
When inspectors requested RN #1's personnel file on October 14, the Assistant Director of Nursing told them there was nothing to find, because RN #1 was agency staff and the facility kept no records for agency employees. What the facility did have was documentation that RN #1 received an orientation on October 7, covering workplace compliance, customer service, resident rights, abuse and neglect, fear of retaliation, workplace violence, and smoking. The orientation happened. The background check did not, or at least could not be proven to have happened.
That distinction matters in a nursing home. Background checks exist specifically to screen out people with prior histories of abusing, neglecting, or stealing from residents. An orientation covering the definition of abuse is not a substitute for knowing whether the person sitting through it has already been found responsible for it somewhere else.
Inspectors found something else when they reviewed the facility's own written policy on abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The policy said the facility would make efforts to ensure residents are protected from physical and psychosocial harm. It said potential employees and contracted temporary staff would be screened for histories of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of residents' property. It said background, reference, and credential checks would be conducted. And it said the facility would maintain documentation proving that screening occurred.
The facility could not produce that documentation for either nurse.
The question of who was responsible for completing the background checks did not have a clean answer, and the people asked to explain it gave different ones. A person identified in the inspection report as Person #1 told inspectors on October 14 that the facility itself was responsible for completing background checks on agency staff. He said NSA only reviewed driver's licenses to check for deficiencies. That was the extent of the agency's screening, as he described it.
The HR representative told a different story. She said the contract between Grandview and NSA made the agency responsible for completing background checks and fingerprinting. She acknowledged the agency had started on September 18. She acknowledged she would normally review each staff member's background check before they covered a shift. Then she said she had not had the opportunity to review all the staff who had been scheduled to cover shifts at the facility.
She did not say how many shifts had already been worked.
The two accounts, taken together, describe a facility where the administrator believed the agency was doing one thing, the HR department believed the contract assigned responsibility to the agency, and the agency was apparently doing neither, at least not in any documented way. Somewhere in that gap, two nurses were working in a building with vulnerable residents, and nobody had confirmed they were safe to be there.
The inspection classified the harm level as minimal or potential, and noted that few residents were affected. That classification reflects what inspectors could document, not what might have gone wrong. The point of pre-employment screening is to prevent harm before it occurs. When the screening is skipped, or deferred, or assumed to be someone else's job, the system designed to catch dangerous workers before they reach residents simply does not function.
Grandview's own policy language was precise on this point. It did not say background checks were preferable, or that the facility would try to obtain them when convenient. It said they would be conducted on contracted temporary staff. It said the facility would maintain proof that screening occurred. As of the October 14 review, that proof did not exist for either RN #1 or RN #3.
The NSA contract began September 18. Inspectors were on site October 14, nearly four weeks later. During that window, both nurses had already worked shifts, and the HR representative said she still had not reviewed the background check documentation for all scheduled staff. The facility could not produce any documents indicating that any NSA staff had undergone a completed background check.
What the inspection report does not say is whether RN #1 or RN #3 had any prior history that a background check would have surfaced. It does not say whether any resident was harmed during the shifts those nurses worked. The inspection was not triggered by a specific incident involving either nurse. It was triggered by a complaint, the nature of which is not specified in the report.
What the report does say is that the facility's own written commitments to resident safety were not being honored, that the people responsible for enforcing those commitments gave conflicting accounts of whose job it was, and that the gap between what the policy promised and what the records showed was complete. There was no partial compliance, no documentation in progress, no background check initiated but not yet finished. There was nothing.
The HR representative said she had not had the opportunity to review all the staff. That is a sentence about workload and time management. It is also a sentence about two nurses who walked into a nursing home, received an orientation about not abusing residents, and went to work, while the paperwork that might have told the facility something important about them sat uncompleted, or unstarted, or somewhere in a contract dispute between a facility and an agency about whose responsibility it was to find out.
The residents at Grandview did not have a say in any of that arrangement.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Grandview Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center from 2025-10-22 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: June 24, 2026 · Our methodology
GRANDVIEW REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE CENTER in NEW BRITAIN, CT was cited for violations during a health inspection on October 22, 2025.
Federal inspectors flagged the violation on October 22, 2025, following a complaint inspection.
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.