M.M. Ewing Continuing Care Center
350 Parrish Street, Canandaigua, NY 14424 · Non profit - Corporation · 178 certified beds · (585) 396-6040 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
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
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.3% | 14.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.6% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.3% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.3% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.7% | 12.5% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.4% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.0% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.2% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.8% | 13.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 9.9% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.9% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.41 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.60 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
53.1% 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 96 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 54 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 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 53.1%CMS range 43.8–62.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.2–14.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 51.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 42.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 46.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 94.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 3.0–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.77 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 178 beds and averages 174.3 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 4.11 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 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 3.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.31 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below 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.
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-21 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 7/17/23 to 7/21/23, it was determined that for one (Resident #8) of three residents reviewed for communication and sensory deficits, the facility did not ensure that each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner that promotes enhancement of their quality of life. Specifically, staff did not identify themselves as requested and per Resident #8's comprehensive care plan (CCP) and did not provide clear communication when providing care to the resident who has communication and sensory deficits. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #8 had diagnoses including legal blindness, acquired absence of the left eye, and hemiplegia (paralysis) of the left upper and lower extremities. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], documented that Resident #8 was cognitively intact, required limited to extensive assist of staff for activities of daily living, has limited vision…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-21 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 observations, interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 7/17/23 to 7/21/23, it was determined that for one (Resident #16) of three residents reviewed for choices, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to retain and use personal possessions as space permits unless to do so would infringe upon the rights or health and safety of other residents. Specifically, Resident #16 was not given permission to purchase a small personal item to keep in their room without a valid reason. This is evidenced by the following: The undated facility policy Residents Rights and Grievance Policy documented that residents have the right to have and use personal possession such as furniture, clothing, and electronics. Resident #16 had diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis (a disease that affects the immune system and nerves) and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], documented that Resident #16 was cognitively intact.…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-21 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey from 7/17/23 to 7/21/23, it was determined that for one (Resident #271) of one resident reviewed for edema (swelling due to excess fluid in the body's tissues, usually occurring in the lower extremities), the facility did not provide services, as outlined by the resident's person-centered comprehensive care plan (CCP) and physician orders, that met professional standards of quality. Specifically, Resident #271 was observed without TED stockings (compressions stockings used for edema and to prevent blood clots in the lower extremities) as ordered by the physician. Additionally, staff documented that the TED stockings were applied to the resident when they were not. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #271 was recently admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included acute respiratory failure, cirrhosis (liver disease), and a stage IV (full thickness tissue loss involving dead tissue, muscle or bone) pressure ulcer. In nursing progress notes dated 7/15/23 to 7/17/23 several…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-11-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey, completed on 11/16/21, it was determined that for one (Resident #115) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and one (Resident #19) of three residents reviewed for indwelling (Foley) catheter, the facility did not develop and implement a plan of care for each resident that included measurable goals and objectives to address the residents' medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. Specifically, The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for Resident #115 did not include person-centered goals and interventions to address the use of psychotropic medications (including both antipsychotic and antidepressant medications) and the CCP for Resident #19 did not include the care of a Foley catheter (indwelling catheter into the bladder and drains urine into a bag), medical indication for, and measurable goals and objectives. This is evidenced by the following: 1.Resident #115 was admitted with diagnosis of hallucinations, major depressive disorder, psychosis, and dementia. 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.
- Potential for harm · D2021-11-16 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide 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 review conducted during a Recertification Survey, completed on 11/16/21, it was determined that for one (Resident #326) of one resident reviewed, the facility did not ensure that proper fluid intake was monitored and provided to maintain proper hydration and health. Specifically, physician orders for a fluid restriction were not consistently monitored or documented to ensure compliance. This was evidenced by the following: Resident #326 had diagnoses that included hyponatremia (low sodium level), traumatic amputation below the knee and clostridium difficile (an infection in the intestinal tract). The medical admission history and physical report, dated 11/3/21 documented that Resident #326 was alert and appropriate, that the hyponatremia was slowly improving and to continue a fluid restriction of 1000 milliliters (mls) fluid daily and if the resident's sodium level improved the restriction could increase to 1500 mls daily. The physician orders dated 11/4/21 at 10:59 a.m. included the fluid restriction was increased to 1500 mls 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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-24 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate 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 reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for 13 (Residents #123, #129, #30, #52, #73, #59, #35, #45, #77, #167, #106, #118, and #78) of 20 residents reviewed for Baseline Care Plans, the facility did not develop a care plan that included the minimum required health care information within 48 hours of admission and/or provide the resident and/or resident representative with a written summary of the resident's Baseline Care Plan in a language and conveyed in a manner that the resident or representative can understand. This is evidenced by, but not limited to, the following: Review of the facility procedure, Baseline Care Plan (BCP), effective 11/8/18, revealed the facility would develop a BCP within 48 hours of admission and or provide a written summary of the care plan to the resident and the representative prior to completion of the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). The BCP will reflect goals/objectives and include interventions that address 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-04-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one (Resident #143) of three residents reviewed for accidents, the facility did not ensure the implementation of each resident's care plan. Specifically, the resident was not wearing geri sleeves at the time of the 3/18/19 incident, and staff did not instruct the resident to tuck in his arms while going through the doorway. This is evidenced by the following Resident #143 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including a traumatic brain injury, rightsided hemiparesis (weakness), and a history of skin tears. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 3/22/19, revealed that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired, and the resident required extensive assistance of staff with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. The Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 6/25/18, revealed that the resident sustained a skin tear to…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (#NY00227931), it was determined that for one (Resident #30) of five residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living, the facility did not provide the necessary care and services to maintain personal hygiene. The issue involved the lack of incontinence care in a timely manner. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses including Alzheimer's dementia, weight loss, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The Minimum Data Set, Assessment, dated 4/17/19, revealed that the resident had severely impaired cognition, was frequently incontinent of bladder and bowel, and required the extensive assist of one staff for transfers and toileting. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Assignment Summary revealed that the resident required one assist for toilet use and stress incontinence was written under bladder continence. During multiple…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-24 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one (Resident #78) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary psychotropic medications. The issues involved the lack of consistent non-pharmacological interventions prior to multiple doses of an anti-anxiety medication, and the lack of a medical evaluation prior to renewing the psychotropic medication every 14 days. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including, but not limited to, heart failure, diabetes, depression, and morbid obesity. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 2/8/19, revealed that the resident was cognitively intact, had no behaviors and scored 7/27 on the PHQ-9 (an interview used to determine signs and/or symptoms of depression). Multiple observations of the resident throughout the day shift over three days…
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.
“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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF THOMPSON HEALTH SYSTEM INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 02/18/1969 |
| APOSTOLAKOS, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/27/2018 |
| ASANTE, AKUA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2022 |
| BLAZEY, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2016 |
| CASE, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/28/2017 |
| DIXON, LAUREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2016 |
| EMBLIDGE, COLEEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/26/2024 |
| FRIEDLANDER, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/28/2017 |
| FULMER, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2022 |
| GOLDSTEIN, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/28/2017 |
| GRISWOLD, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2016 |
| HUNT, DALE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/28/2017 |
| JACKSON, KRISTA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2022 |
| JONES, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/24/2020 |
| KENYON, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/28/2017 |
| KOVALESKI, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2022 |
| LAMB, GEORGIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/24/2020 |
| LINEHAN, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/26/2024 |
| NICHOLAS, NIRMALA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SANDS, LAUREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/27/2018 |
| SOMERSET, MARGARET | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2016 |
| TAUBMAN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/28/2017 |
| TEERLINCK, CYNTHIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/26/2024 |
| VANDUSEN, LORI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/28/2017 |
| WEIS, JUSTIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/29/2022 |
| WOLFE, MAUREEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/26/2019 |
| JANCZAK, MATHEW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| PRUNOSKE, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2010 |
| STAPLETON, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2012 |
| MM EWING CONTINUING CARE CENTER | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/18/1969 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 42 rows in the source record cover these 30 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
What families pay in NY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335345. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-07-21, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.