St Peters Nursing And Rehabilitation 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.

47.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 207 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 51.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 104 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 160 beds and averages 101.6 residents a day — about 64% occupied, or roughly 58 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 4.33 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.75 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.44 is below 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 3.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.49 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.88 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

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.

18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · E2026-05-29 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
  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 record reviews and interviews conducted during a survey, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from neglect and abuse for three (3) (Resident #s 2, 15, and 18) of 22 residents reviewed. Specifically, a.) Resident #'s 2 and 18 care plans were not followed resulting in injury; and b.) Resident #15 was prevented from leaving their room by a staff member.Findings include:The Policy and Procedure titled Abuse Prevention and Investigation Policy, dated 3/25/2025, documented abuse was defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with physical pain, harm, or mental anguish, deprivation of goods or service and neglect was defined as the failure to provide timely, consistent, safe, adequate and appropriate services, treatment and care including nutrition, medication, and therapies.The policy and procedure titled Interdisciplinary Care Conference and Care Planning, dated 06/27/2023, documented the purpose of a comprehensive care plan is to promote…

  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 · No revisit needed
• Potential for harm · D2026-05-29 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interviews conducted during a survey, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing. Specifically, Resident #1 did not receive ordered treatments of Santyl ointment (a prescription topical ointment used to clean and remove dead tissue form severe burns and chronic skin ulcers), and dry dressing to left foot on the dates on 12/04/2026 - 12/09/2026.Findings include:Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (an intermittent condition where the upper chambers of the heart beat chaotically and out of sync,) history of other venous thrombosis and embolism (a blood clot that blocks the flow of blood through a vein), and diaphragmatic hernia without obstruction or gangrene (a condition where the abdominal organs push through a defect in the diaphragm and become severely trapped). The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · No revisit needed
• Potential for harm · D2022-11-17 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record reviews and interviews during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity for one (Resident #32) of two residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #32, the facility did not ensure a catheter drainage bag was covered when the resident was out of bed and in common areas of the facility. This is evidenced by: Resident #32 Resident #32 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of dementia, obstructive and reflux uropathy and benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary symptoms. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 9/10/22 documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired. A Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Long Term Catheterization of Urinary Bladder revised 6/14/17 documented a urinary catheter drainage bag should be kept covered. During an observation on 11/9/22 at 12:47 PM, Resident #32 was in the dining room. Resident's urinary catheter drainage bag was visible and not covered. During an observation on 11/10/22 at 11:13 AM, Resident #32 was in a common…

  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 · D2022-11-17 · 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

  Based on record review and interview during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that written notification was sent to the resident, the resident's representative, and a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of the resident's transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move for 3 (Resident #'s 13, 29, and #100) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization. Specifically, for Residents #'s 13 and #100, the facility did not ensure there was documentation that the facility provided written notification to the resident, the resident's representative, or the Ombudsman when the residents were admitted to a hospital from the facility and for Resident #29, the facility did not provide written notice of admission to a hospital to the Ombudsman. This is evidenced by: Resident #13 Resident #13 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of hemiplegia after cerebral vascular accident, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral vascular disease. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 9/12/2022, documented the resident could understand, was…

  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 · Dcited before2022-11-17 · 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

  Based on record review and interview during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure written notice which specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy, was provided to the resident and the resident representative at the time of transfer for hospitalization. This was evident for 3 (Residents #'s 13, 29, and #100) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization. Specifically, for Residents #'s 13, 29, and #100, the facility did not ensure the resident and the resident's representative were notified in writing of the bed hold policy when the residents were admitted to the hospital. This is evidenced by the following: The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Bed Retention Policy effective 11/28/16, stated when a hospital transfer occurs, the resident and/or designated representative will be notified verbally or in writing by nursing or social services by the next business day. Resident #13 Resident #13 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of hemiplegia after cerebral vascular accident, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral vascular disease. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - 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 · E2020-10-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute or serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Food preparation and serving areas and equipment are to be kept clean, kitchen equipment is to be kept in good repair, and a test kit is to be provided to measure the parts per million (ppm) concentration of the solution used to sanitize equipment. Specifically, equipment in the main kitchen and unit kitchenettes were not clean, equipment was not in good repair, and an accurate test kit was not provided. This is evidenced as follows. The main kitchen and the kitchenettes were inspected on 07/29/2019 at 10:15 AM. In the main kitchen and unit kitchenettes, the shelving, drawers, mixer, slicer, ABC fire extinguisher, microwave ovens were soiled with food particles; the floor in the floor right of the sink in the Unit 4 kitchenette was soiled with a black build-up. In the main kitchen, the interior plastic panel of the Nor-Lake reach-in refrigerator was cracked exposing…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2020-10-07 · 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 observation, interview and record review during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure it developed and implemented a Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for three (Resident #'s (55, 77, and #85, ) of 24 residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #55, the facility did not ensure a CCP was developed for the care and treatment of depression, for Resident #77, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to meet the resident's need for the use of splints and positioning devices, and for Resident #85, the CCP for visual impairment was person centered and included the services required to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. This resulted in no actual harm with potential for more than minimal…

  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 · D2020-10-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  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, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 3 (Resident #'s 77, 101, and 407) of 24 residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #77, the facility did not recognize or assess the risks associated with the use of splinting and immobilizing devices and for Resident #407, the facility did not ensure the residents diagnosis of cellulitis (a bacterial skin infection) to the left lower extremity was assessed, monitored and treated, and for Resident #101, the facility did not ensure that the resident, who had severe swallowing difficulties, was out of bed for meals per Speech Therapy recommendations. This is evidenced by: Resident #77: Resident #77 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis of spastic right hemiplegia, cerebral infarction, and contracture of the right hand. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 9/11/2020, documented the…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2020-10-07 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolated
  Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Specifically, the trash compactor was not clean and the area around was littered with refuse. This is evidenced as follows. The trash compactor area was inspected on 10/01/2020 at 11:30 AM. The access room was heavily soiled with a splattered filth on the walls, and the access portal door was heavily soiled with a black filth build-up. The Manager of Housekeeping stated in an interview on 10/01/2020 at 11:30 AM, that she will get going on the cleaning the area. 10 NYCRR 415.14(h)

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2019-02-15 · tag F0655 — pattern
  Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
  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 survey, the facility did not provide the resident or the residents representative with a written summary of the baseline care plan for 6 of (Resident #'s 28, 29, 34, 86, 93, and 124) of 28 residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #'s 28, 29, 34, 86, 93, and #124, the facility did not ensure written summaries of the baseline care plan were provided to the resident and/or the resident's representative. This is evidenced by: Review of the facility policy titled Interdisciplinary Care Conference and Care Planning dated 11/28/2016, documented that a baseline care plan and current physician's orders will be given within 48 hours of admission to the resident and/or the designated representative for review and input. Resident and/or designated representative will acknowledge receipt upon admission. Resident #124: The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, and adult failure…

  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

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to TRINITY HEALTH — 19 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $857K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NY