Seton Health At Schuyler Ridge Residential H 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.

48.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 172 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 46.8% 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 94 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 31% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 33% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 116.5 residents a day — about 97% 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 3.92 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.27 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.11 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.78 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 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are 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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-04 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #s, NY00319900 and NY00344983), the facility did not ensure each resident's right to be free from neglect for 2 (Resident #s 53 and 112) of 7 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #53, the resident had a fall out of bed with injuries and staff did not follow the care plan by placing the fall mats next to the resident's bed. Specifically, (b.) Resident #112 had a fall on 5/31/2024 and complained of back pain post fall and X-ray was ordered . Assistant Director of Nursing #2 reviewed the radiology report, which verified the resident had a thoracic (back) #12 vertebrae fracture (bone break), but documented that there was no fracture. This delayed care necessary to avoid the resident's pain. This is evidenced by: Resident #53 Resident #53 was admitted to the facility with orthostatic hypotension (low blood pressure might cause dizziness, lightheadedness or fainting when rising from sitting or…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-03-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during a recertification and abbreviated survey (case #'s NY00319900, NY00349063, and NY00372837), the facility did not develop and implemented a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 8 (Residents #s 20, 22, 46, 57, 101, 109, 113, and,114) of 24 residents reviewed for Care Plans. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #20, oxygen administration was not implemented according to the resident's care plan; (b.) for Resident #22, the right blue [NAME] posey splint was not consistently applied as indicated in the Resident's Comprehensive Care Plan; (c.) for Resident #46 did not have a care plan in place that addressed their incontinence concerns; (d.) for Resident #57, a Comprehensive Care Plan for hospice was not implemented when…

  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 · E2025-03-04 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — pattern
  Ensure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is 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 observations, interviews, and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure dependent residents was provided with appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve their language and communication for 2 (Resident #s 13 and 74) of 5 residents reviewed. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #13, nursing staff did not ensure there was consistent access to their communication dry/erase board so staff could use it to write down what they wanted to express as Resident #13 had hearing loss, and for (b.) Resident #74, who was nonverbal, communication board was not used to allow resident to express their wants and needs. This is evidenced by: Facility's Policy titled Effective Communication with Residents with Hearing, Vision and Verbal Impairments effective 2023 documented the purpose of the policy was to ensure all residents including those with vision, hearing, and verbal impairments receive respectful and appropriate communication that supports their well-being and dignity.…

  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 · E2025-03-04 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — pattern
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
  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, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident received the necessary respiratory care and services that were following professional standards of practice, for 3 (Resident #s 20, 60, and 75) of 3 residents reviewed for oxygen administration. Specifically, (a) supplemental oxygen tubing was not dated and labeled to reflect when the tubing was changed; and (b) supplemental oxygen was not provided as ordered by the physician. This is evidenced by: A review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration dated 1/2019 documented the facility was to provide oxygen by oxygen mask/cannula to residents with deficiencies or abnormalities of pulmonary function, to prevent or reverse hypoxia, and improve tissue oxygenation. The procedure documented that the tubing was to be attached, labeled, and dated, as well as following the orders for oxygen in the electronic record system to guide staff. Resident #20 Resident #20 was…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-03-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards of practice for 3 ([NAME] Unit Cart A, [NAME] Hills Unit Carts A and B) of 3 medication carts, and 1 ([NAME] Hills Side B) of 3 medication rooms reviewed. Specifically, (a.) 2 open bottles of ear drops had no open dates and or expiration dates (b.) 1 bottle of ear drops had expired; (C.) 3 bottles of open eye drops had expired; (d.) 4 inhalers had no expiration dates; (e.) 2 vials of insulin had no open date and or expiration dates and; (f.) 1 bottle of purified protein derivative (PPD) had no open and or expiration date. This is evidenced by: The facility's Policy and Procedure titled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications and Biologicals, reviwed 8/01/2024, documented facility should ensure medications and biologicals that:(1) have an expired date on the label; (2) have been retained longer than…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-03-04 · tag F0807 — failed to offer suitable drinks — pattern
  Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides drinks consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration.
  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 failed to ensure each resident received drinks, including water and other liquids, consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration. Specifically, Residents on Saratoga Hills unit were not offered beverages of their preference during a lunch meal observation. This is evidenced by: The facility policy Hydration effective date 10/15/2021 documented it is the policy to provide residents with sufficient fluids to maintain adequate hydration and health, including fluids served at mealtimes and between meals, offered consistent with care plan, preferences, and choice. The facility policy Resident Food Services date issued 05/1995, revised 01/2025 documented residents will be offered menu choices for all meals, beverages and snacks based on their prescribed diet, food preferences, allergies, intolerances, preferences and consistent with their plan of care. During the lunch meal observation on 02/26/2025 at 12:23 PM on Saratoga Hills unit, Resident #…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-03-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed or served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 3 of 5 resident unit kitchenettes and the main kitchen. Specifically, walls were not in good repair and microwave ovens, refrigerators, and tables were not clean. This is evidenced by: During observations on 2/25/2025 at 10:21 AM: • 10 wall coving tiles were broken in the dishwashing machine area. • Seven wall coving tiles were broken in the main kitchen. • The microwave ovens, the refrigerators including door gasket, and the underside of dining tables were soiled with food particles on the [NAME] kitchenette, [NAME] A kitchenette, and [NAME] B kitchenette. During an interview on 2/25/2025 at 11:38 AM, Executive Chef #1 stated that they would contact housekeeping to clean the tables and would remind the maintenance department of the work order they submitted to repair the coving tiles. Executive…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-03-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure an infection control prevention and control program was implemented to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 (Resident #s 57 and #77) of 5 residents. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #57, staff did not perform proper doffing and donning of personal protective equipment between care of residents; and (b.) for Resident #77, the staff did not perform proper infection control procedures while conducting wound care. This is evidenced by: A review of the 2025 Infection Prevention and Control Plan documented that the plan's purpose is to provide an effective system-wide program for the surveillance, prevention, and control of infection and infectious diseases. The goals of the Infection Prevention and Control Program were to assist in maintaining a safe environment and improve resident outcomes as…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-04 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident was treated in a dignified manner for 4 (Resident #'s 46, 57, 59, and 74) of 24 residents reviewed. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #'s 46, 57, and 59, stated staff did not knock on their doors prior to entering their rooms. Specifically, (b.) for Resident #59, staff distributed meals to all residents at each table before serving residents eating in their rooms; and (c.) Certified Nurse Aide #13 delayed assisting the resident with their meal while using their personal phone in the dining room for over 20 minutes; and (d.) for Resident #74's personal items were disturbed by Resident #44. This is evidenced by: Finding #1: The facility did not ensure all residents were served timely at joining tables and that staff engaged with the residents requiring assistance at mealtime. Resident #59: Resident #59 was admitted with diagnoses Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, heart failure (a syndrome…

  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 · D2025-03-04 · tag F0644 — isolated
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure assessments were coordinated with the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) program under Medicaid for 1(Resident #78) of 24 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #78 with a new diagnosis of a serious mental disorder was not referred for a PASARR Level II Evaluation. This is evidenced by: The facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASSAR), effective 9/10/2022, documented All individuals seeking admission will undergo a PASRR Level I screening prior to admission to determine if they have a mental illness or intellectual disability. Screening would be conducted in accordance with New York State Department of Health guidelines and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulations. Level II Evaluation: If the Level I screening indicates potential mental illness or intellectual disability, a Level II evaluation would be completed by a qualified mental health professional. The evaluation would…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.

• Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-06-04 for 15 days

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

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

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 38 rows in the source record cover these 26 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.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

This home reported $983K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

Cost & finances

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

What families pay in NY