St Margarets Center

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.70 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 92% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 92 beds and averages 72.8 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 19 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 8.30 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.93 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.71 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 7.69 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 8.54 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.14 to 1.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

15 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · E2025-02-18 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — pattern
  Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on records review and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident's drug/medication regimen was managed and monitored to promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being for 10 (Resident #s 1, 6, 10, 45, 46,48, 54, 62, 68, and 79) of 19 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, for Resident #s 1, 6, 10, 45, 46, 48, 54, 62, 68, and 79, as-needed psychotropic medication orders did not include end dates. This is evidenced by: A facility policy titled, Medication Management dated 12/10/2024, documented that as needed orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days. The use of psychotropic medication to treat an emergency situation must be consistent with the requirements regarding as needed orders for psychotropic medications. Resident #1 Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy (movement disorder which include poor coordination,…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-02-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interviews during a recertification survey, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection. Specifically, the facility water management and sampling plan did not include a simple schematic that visually described the building water system and the identification of areas where Legionella could grow and spread. This is evidenced by: There was no documented evidence that the facility water management and sampling plan included a simple schematic that visually described the building water system and the identification of areas where Legionella could grow and spread. During an interview on 02/11/2025 at 11:46 AM, Senior Regional Director of Facilities #1 stated that the facility Legionella Management Plan would be updated to include a flow chart that described the building water system and the identification of areas where Legionella could grow and spread. 10 New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations 483.80(a)(1)(2)(4)(e)(f)

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-02-18 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during a recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #s NY00311240, NY00320508, NY00321961, and NY00329555), the facility did not ensure residents were free from neglect for 4 (Resident #s 1, 5, 6, and #45) of 19 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. Specifically, (a.) Resident #1, was provided personal care by Certified Nurse Aide #2 instead of two staff members as their care plan indicated, and Resident #1's bed was not set up as the care plan required, subsequently, the resident hit their head and sustained a small injury to their forehead; (b.) Resident #5 sustained a fall from a mechanical lift due to improper technique; (c.) Resident #6 sustained a fractured left great toe with evidence of improper transfer found; and (d.) Resident #45 was being readied to be transferred from their wheelchair, but the Certified Nurse Aide #3 did not buckle the resident's seatbelt causing the resident to fall from their wheelchair to the floor. This is evidenced by:…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-02-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during recertification and abbreviated survey (case #NY00329555), the facility did not ensure that the development and implementation of comprehensive person-centered care plans included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents' medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 3 (Resident #s 4, 59, and 62) of 19 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #s 4 and 59 , the Comprehensive Care Plan did not include the use of medications with specific indication for use; (b.) for Resident #62, intervention of floor mat on the floor was not implemented to ensure safety while at play. This is evidenced by: A facility policy titled, Care Plans, dated 4/01/2019, documented under Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. Each resident's care plan was designed to: a. Incorporate identified problem areas; f. Identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of care; i. Reflect currently…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-02-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored properly and labeled in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, opened medications had no open and/or expiration dates for 2 out of 5 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. This is evidenced by: The Facility's Medication Storage Policy, revised on 1/10/2024, documented under Medication Storage section that the nursing staff was responsible for maintaining medication storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner; medications were stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, carts, or automatic dispensing systems; medications were stored separately from food and were labeled accordingly. Under Medication Labeling section, the policy documented that labeling of medication and biologicals dispensed by the pharmacy is consistent with applicable federal and state requirements and currently accepted pharmaceutical practices; multi-dose vials that have been opened would…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
  Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (Case #NY00323346), the facility did not ensure that alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 22 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, the facility did not ensure they reported the alleged sexual abuse of Resident #1 to the New York State Department of Health (DOH) within 2 hours of learning about it when the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] was reviewed that documented the allegation of sexual abuse or following the resident's representative call to the facility who voiced concerns regarding the alleged abuse. This was evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure titled,…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (Case #NY00323346), the facility did not ensure in response to allegations of abuse the facility must have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 22 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, the facility did not ensure it investigated the allegation of sexual abuse for Resident #1 when the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] that documented it was reviewed, or following the resident's representative call to the facility who voiced concerns regarding the alleged abuse. This was evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure titled, Incident Reporting Policy reviewed 4/6/2022, documented the licensed nurse or supervisor shall promptly initiate a thorough investigation regarding the alleged incident to determine whether it is reportable in accordance with this policy. The investigation must be thorough and complete. Resident #1 Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2022-06-29 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey and an abbreviated survey (Case #NY00288015), the facility did not ensure resident records were maintained in accordance with professional standards of practice for 5 (Resident #'s 32, 38, 76, 77, and #280) of 21 residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #32, the facility did not ensure staff documented whether the resident was provided with toileting per their assigned toilet training program between 12/1/2021 - 12/15/2021; for Resident #38, the facility did not ensure that the resident's care plan was updated with a new focus, goals, and interventions following a condition change on 6/16/22 when the resident was diagnosed with COVID-19; for Resident #76, the facility did not ensure documentation of administration and response to treatments and medications provided, change of condition, and test results; for Resident #77, the facility did not ensure facility staff documented whether the resident was toileted per their toileting program; for Resident #280, the facility did not ensure staff…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2022-06-29 · tag F0623 — isolated
  Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews during the recertification survey dated 6/23/2022 through 6/29/2022, the facility did not ensure the resident, residents' representatives and the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman were notified in writing of the reason for the transfer/discharge to the hospital in a language and manner they understood for 1 (Resident #46) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalizations. Specifically, for Resident #46, the facility did not provide a written transfer/discharge notice to the resident, residents representative or the Ombudsman when the resident was transferred to the hospital on 5/31/2022 and again on 6/3/2022. This is evidenced by: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Transfer and Discharges dated 3/28/2019, documented the facility will notify the resident and designated representative of the decision to transfer or discharge and reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand. The notice will be provided as soon as practicable when an…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2022-06-29 · tag F0625 — isolated
  Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure written notice of the facility's bed hold policy was provided to the residents and the resident representatives for 1 (Resident #46) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization. Specifically, for Resident #46, the facility did not ensure the resident and the resident representative received written notice of the facility's bed hold policy when the resident was transferred to the hospital. This was evidenced by: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Bed Reservations dated 4/2/2019, documented at the time of admission and again at the time of transfer for any reason, the facility shall inform and provide written information to the resident and the designated representative regarding bed reservation. Resident #46: Resident #46 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of malignant neoplasm of the cerebellum, chronic respiratory failure; dependence on respirator (ventilator), and presence of cerebrospinal fluid…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 27 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

What families pay in NY