Douglas Manor: Care Plan Withheld for Two Months - CT
Not for two months.
Federal inspectors who visited Douglas Manor on August 18 found that neither the resident nor the family received a copy of the baseline care plan or participated in a care planning meeting until July 28, a full sixty days after the resident was admitted on May 28. The requirement to share that plan within forty-eight hours of admission isn't a formality. It exists so families know what care their relative is supposed to receive and can raise concerns before problems develop.
The Director of Social Services, interviewed by inspectors that afternoon, said she thought a meeting had been held earlier. She couldn't be sure, though, because she had never documented it in the clinical record.
That answer sent her looking for corroboration. She checked with the therapy department, which attended all care plan meetings at the facility. The therapy department had no record of any such meeting occurring.
So the first documented contact between the facility and the family about this resident's care plan was July 28, eight weeks in.
The resident's condition made the gap meaningful. The admission assessment identified memory deficits alongside the physical diagnoses. The resident required moderate assistance with personal hygiene and bed mobility, maximum assistance for dressing, and was fully dependent for toileting, showers, transfers, and walking. The baseline care plan called for two-hour toileting schedules, barrier protection after incontinence care, lab work, psychiatric consultations as needed, and daily living assistance. A family that didn't know those interventions were ordered couldn't ask whether they were being carried out.
The facility's own policies, reviewed by inspectors, stated that residents have the right to participate in their care planning and treatment. A separate policy said residents have the right to participate in the development and implementation of their plan of care. Douglas Manor had written those commitments down. It did not meet them for this resident.
The inspection covered four residents reviewed for care plan coordination. Only one, this resident, showed the failure. That narrow scope is part of what kept the violation at the lower end of the harm scale in the inspection findings. But the violation isn't technical. A family bringing a relative with bipolar disorder, heart failure, and lung disease into a nursing facility is depending on the institution to communicate. The forty-eight-hour window exists because the first days of a nursing home stay are when care patterns get established, when family members are most alert to whether things are going right, and when concerns can be raised before they become crises.
The Director of Social Services could not account for what happened during those two months. She thought there had been a meeting. There was no documentation. The therapists who would have been in the room had no record of it. Her uncertainty, stated plainly to inspectors, was the clearest evidence of what the clinical record had already shown: nobody had documented a meeting because, as far as the record reflects, no meeting had occurred.
The July 28 meeting did happen. The Care Plan Meeting Invitation form confirmed it, and inspectors noted it addressed concerns the resident and family had raised. What those concerns were, and how long the family had been waiting to raise them, the inspection report does not say.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Douglas Manor from 2025-08-18 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Download the official CMS inspection PDF from Medicare.gov
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.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: September 22, 2026 · Our methodology
DOUGLAS MANOR in WINDHAM, CT was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 18, 2025.
The requirement to share that plan within forty-eight hours of admission isn't a formality.
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.