Avon Nursing Home L L C

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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% 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 40 beds and averages 37.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.06 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 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.38 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%.

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.

• Actual harm · G2024-10-02 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 09/26/2024 to 10/02/2024, the facility failed to ensure services were provided to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status for one (Resident #27) of two residents reviewed for nutrition. Specifically, Resident #27 had multiple meal refusals and decreased intakes (less than 50%) for approximately two months resulting in a 31 pound (14.4%) unplanned, severe weight loss. The facility could not provide evidence that nursing leadership, dietary or the medical team had been notified or any supplemental interventions had been implemented. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #27 that was not Immediate Jeopardy and is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Nutritional (Impaired)/Unplanned Weight Loss - Clinical Protocol, dated September 2017, included nursing staff would monitor and document the weight and dietary intake of residents in a format which permits comparisons over time. Additionally, staff would report to the physician significant weight gains or losses…

  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 · D2024-10-02 · tag F0554 — isolated
  Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 09/26/2024 to 10/02/2024, the facility did not ensure residents were assessed by an interdisciplinary team to determine their ability to safely self-administer a medication for one (Resident #7) of six residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #7 was observed with a prescribed inhaler kept at the beside with no documented evidence that an assessment had been completed to determine their ability to safely self-administer the medication or a physician's order for self-administration. This was evidenced by the following: Review of the facility policy Administering Medications, dated April 2019, revealed that medications are administered in accordance with prescribed orders. Residents may self-administer their own medications if the attending physician, in conjunction with the interdisciplinary care team, has determined the resident to have the decision-making capacity to do so. The facility education reference guide Self-Administration of Medications, reviewed September 2023,…

  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 · D2024-10-02 · 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

  Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 09/26/2024 to 10/02/2024, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive plan of care (including measurable goals and interventions) for one (Resident #14) of two residents reviewed for communication and sensory. Specifically, Resident #14's Comprehensive Care Plan did not include that the resident had profound hearing loss, used of an amplifier (hearing aid), or was able to read lips. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy Resident-Centered Care Planning last reviewed February 2024, documented each resident will have a Comprehensive Resident-Centered Care Plan that is consistent with resident rights and person-centered care. Resident #14 had diagnoses that included a stroke, right sided hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness and/or paralysis on one side of the body), and hearing loss. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 09/20/2024, documented that Resident #14 was cognitively intact, had moderate difficulty with hearing (speaker has to increase…

  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 · D2021-09-30 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  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 interviews and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey, completed on 9/30/21, it was determined for 1 (Resident #7) of 14 residents, the facility did not ensure that staff who have the skills and qualifications to assess relevant care areas and who are knowledgeable about the resident's status, needs, strengths and areas of decline, accurately complete the resident assessment. Specifically, Resident #7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments, dated 5/7/21 and 7/6/21, were incorrectly coded or did not include the resident's Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) conditions. This was evidenced by the following: The MDS Assessment manual, dated October 2019, documented that all individuals who are admitted to a Medicaid certified nursing facility must have a Level I PASRR completed to screen for possible mental illness (MI), intellectual disability (ID), developmental disability (DD) or related conditions. Individuals who have or are suspected to have MI or ID may not be…

  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 · D2021-09-30 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  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 interviews and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey, completed on 9/30/21, it was determined for 1 (#7) of 14 residents reviewed the facility did not ensure that preadmission screening for an individual identified with an intellectual disability (ID) was completed prior to admission in order to receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs as per the regulations. Specifically, the Pre-admission Screen Resident Review (PASRR) for Resident #7, dated 10/2/17, was not completed by a qualified screener and did not accurately determine the need for a Level II screen (to assess for additional services). In addition, the facility did not reassess Resident #7 following a significant change in condition. This was evidenced by the following: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment manual, dated October 2019, documented that all individuals who have or are suspected to have mental illness (MI) or ID/developmental disability (DD) or related conditions may not…

  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
• No harm found · B2023-02-17 · 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 interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey conducted 2/13/23 to 2/17/2023, it was determined that for four Residents (#9, #11, #19, #31) of four residents reviewed for Baseline Care Plans (BCP), the facility did not consistently develop and implement a BCP within 48 hours of admission that included the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the immediate needs of the resident and did not provide the resident and/or resident representative a written summary of the BCP. Specifically, for Resident #11, the facility was unable to provide documented evidence that a BCP was created, or any summary of care provided to the resident or resident representative. For Residents #9, #19 and #31, the facility could not provide documented evidence that a BCP contained the necessary information or that any information regarding the residents' care was reviewed with the resident and/or resident representative. This is evidenced by, but not limited to, the following:…

  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

Fines & penalties

$32,975 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $32,975 — penalty dated 2024-10-02

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to HURLBUT CARE — 13 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 4 rows in the source record cover these 2 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