United Helpers Canton Nursing Home
205 State Street Road, Canton, NY 13617 · Non profit - Corporation · 160 certified beds · (315) 386-4541 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 held steady at 4 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 | 23.6% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.1% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 8.1% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 4.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.7% | 12.5% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.9% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.0% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.1% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.8% | 13.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.4% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.1% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.62 | 1.70 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.90 | 1.36 | 1.80 | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
60.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 154 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.7% 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 99 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 32% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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.
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 | 60.6%CMS range 53.2–66.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.7%CMS range 6.8–12.8 | 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 | 65.7% | 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 | 49.5% | 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 | 65.7% | 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 | 99.2% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.3% | 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 | 3.3% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 4.7–11.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.89 | 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 160 beds and averages 89.8 residents a day — about 56% occupied, or roughly 70 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 3.03 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.78 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 2.41 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.28 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.80 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 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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 2 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-06-10 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to consult with the physician when there was a significant change in a resident's physical status for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1 had an acute physical decline on 05/24/2026, including inability to swallow, unresponsiveness, and increased signs and symptoms of discomfort, and the physician was not notified of the resident's change in status. Resident #1 was subsequently hospitalized upon the family's request and diagnosed with sepsis (extreme response to infection). This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. The findings are:The 09/05/2019 reviewed facility policy, Notification of Resident Change, documented the facility must immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and the resident's legal representative when: a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (i.e., a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening condition or clinical complications).…
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 · Ecited before2024-08-09 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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, observation, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/6/2024-8/9/2024, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 2 of 2 resident neighborhoods (North and [NAME] Neighborhoods). Specifically, hot water was not maintained at acceptable temperatures in the North and [NAME] neighborhoods; resident wheelchairs were soiled and in disrepair on the [NAME] Neighborhood; there were sticky floors in several areas of the North Neighborhood; and the kitchenettes on the North and [NAME] Neighborhoods were in disrepair. Findings include: The facility policy, Resident's Rights, dated 8/15/2017, documented residents of the facility had the right to live in a clean and safe environment. The facility policy, Maintaining and Monitoring Water Temperatures - SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility), dated 2/2021 documented the water temperature must be capable of attaining a temperature of 90 degrees Fahrenheit and must not attain a…
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 · D2024-08-09 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/6/2024-8/9/2024, the facility did not ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 3 of 4 resident (Residents #9, #53, and #59) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #9 and #53 did not receive medications as ordered and the medical provider was not notified, and Resident #59 did not receive their medication for Parkinson's disease (a progressive neuorological disorder) timely as ordered. Findings include: The facility policy, Medication Policies Program, revised 9/16/2024, documented all drugs were to be administered in compliance with the physician's orders, were administered safely, and were administered without error. The person who administered the medication would ensure the six rights of medication administration: the right person, the right medication, the right dose, the right time, the right method/route, and the right documentation. 1) Resident #9 had diagnoses including depression, heart failure, and hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). The 6/4/2024 Minimum…
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 · D2024-08-09 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/6/2024-8/9/2024, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were labelled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions when applicable for 1 of 4 medication carts (North neighborhood, Oak, and Elm Cart) reviewed. Specifically, the North neighborhood (the secured unit) Oak and Elm medication cart was left unlocked and unattended. Findings include: The facility policy, Medication Policies Program, revised 9/7/2016, documented medication rooms, medication cupboards, medication carts, and drug preparation areas would be kept clean, neat, and orderly at all times and the area would be kept locked unless under direct visual control by the staff person responsible for the medication administration. All mobile medication carts must be under visual control of the designated staff administering medications at all times. The following observations were made on 8/7/2024: - At 12:24 PM, the medication cart for Oak…
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 before2022-06-09 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 6/7/22-6/9/22, the facility failed to exercise reasonable care for the protection of resident property from loss for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #26) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #26's hearing aids were missing and there was no documented evidence the missing hearing aids were reported or an investigation was initiated. Findings include: The facility policy Misappropriation of Resident Property revised 6/26/17 documented: - All employees have the responsibility to protect the resident's property and to alert the appropriate individuals of any occurrence of misappropriation. - Upon receipt of an allegation of misappropriation (either verbally or written) by the resident, designated representative, or other individual or source, it shall be reported to the administrator or designee immediately and investigation will be undertaken not later than 48 hours after receipt. Resident #26 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and…
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 · D2022-06-09 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00293106) conducted 6/7/22 to 6/9/22, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #46) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #46 had a bruise which was not thoroughly investigated to rule out abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Findings include: The facility policy Reporting & Investigating Resident Incidents dated 6/26/17 documented: - If a resident was subjected to an incident, any employee must report such an incident or suspicion to the charge nurse/supervisor/department head/DON (Director of Nursing)/Administrator. - The supervisor or designee must complete an Incident Report. If an incident occurred, the Administrator or designee would be immediately notified, and an investigation initiated. - The Building Supervisor would notify the Administrator or designee if any injury of unknown origins occurred, which was considered a possible reportable incident to the New York State…
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 · D2022-06-09 · 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 observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00289301) conducted 6/7/22-6/9/22, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #55) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #55 was not provided protective heel boots as care planned. Findings include: Resident #55 had diagnoses including dementia and chronic pain. The 4/26/22 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment, did not exhibit behavioral symptoms or rejection of care, was dependent for ADLs, was at risk for pressure ulcer/injury, and had pressure reducing devices for the chair and bed. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 8/30/21 documented the resident was at risk for pressure ulcers due to impaired mobility and chronic disease. Interventions included observe skin…
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 · D2019-06-28 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 interview and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident and/or resident representative, was involved in developing the plan of care and making decisions about his or her care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #52) reviewed for care planning. Specifically, Resident #52 was not invited to attend her annual care plan meeting. Findings include: The 4/7/17 Resident/Family Participation policy documented residents are invited to attend and participate in the care planning conferences on at least an annual basis and advanced notice of the care planning conference is provided to the resident by mail, telephone, and/or in person. Social services maintains a record of such notices by documentation in the resident's medical record and/or keeping a copy of mailed notices. Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease and dementia. The 12/4/18 annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had moderately…
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 · D2019-06-28 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 interview during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure residents with limited range of motion (ROM) received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for ROM. Specifically, Resident #22 had recommendations for a palm protector for hand contractures and the resident was observed without the palm protector in place. Additionally, guidelines for use of the palm protector were unclear. Findings include: The 2/29/08 Documentation of Range of Motion Limitations and Contractures Policy documented a resident with limited range of motion will receive appropriate treatment and services to improve range of motion and/or prevent further decline in his/her range of motion. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and osteoarthritis. The 4/23/19 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had…
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 · D2019-06-28 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the provision of food and drink was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 2 meals (West Unit dinner) tested. Specifically, food at a lunch meal was not served at palatable and safe temperatures. Findings include: The 2/13/12 Food Service Production policy documented hot food items must be stored at a temperature of at least 140 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to prevent food borne illnesses. All thermometers will be tested weekly to ensure accurate food temperatures. The 6/26/19 Temperature Sheet for the lunch meal documented that the whole grilled chicken had a measured temperature of 190 F and the mashed potatoes were 189 F. There was no documented time or location when the temperatures were obtained. During a unit dining observation on 6/26/19 at 12:21 PM, a tray was assembled by a staff member for a resident that was not eating and was set aside. Diet Technician/Supervisor #16 observed one of the burners on the steam table was turned off. 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.
“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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNIGHT, STEPHEN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/06/2009 |
| MORRISON, JAMES | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/1999 |
| CRUIKSHANK, CHERYL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/27/2016 |
| LISCUM, DARLENE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/27/2016 |
| MACARTHUR, MARTHA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/27/2016 |
| MICHAELSON, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/27/2016 |
| AMORIELL, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/27/2016 |
| NACCARATO, FRANCINE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2011 |
| REHSE, NANCY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/27/2016 |
| UNITED HELPERS MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/12/1982 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.
1 organizational owner 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.
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
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 335566. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-09, 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.