Katherine Luther Residential Hlth Care & Rehab

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.

51.1% 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 166 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 69.7% 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 76 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 0.48 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 79% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 280 beds and averages 150.9 residents a day — about 54% occupied, or roughly 129 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.99 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.71 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below 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.

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.

35 citations, most serious first. The 15 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-05-24 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview during the abbreviated and extended survey (NY00323717), the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 of 6 residents reviewed (Resident #2 and #7. Specifically, Resident #2 had a fall with a hematoma (pooling of blood under the skin) to the back of their head and neurological checks were not completed. When the resident had a change in condition (lethargy, sluggish eye movement, slow to speak, and vomiting), a medical provider was not notified in a timely manner (approximately 2 hours after symptoms began). Additionally, a delay in transport to the hospital occurred when the facility was not able to reach Emergency Medical Services. Subsequently, the resident was sent to the hospital 3.25 hours after their change in condition was identified, diagnosed with a severe brain hemorrhage (bleed) and expired the next day. Resident #7 had a fall with a hematoma to the back of their head and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. When Resident #7 returned to the…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Actual harm · Gdisputed · IDR2026-06-26 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  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

  Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse and neglect for one of one resident (Resident #167) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #167 required assistance of two for transfers using a mechanical lift and on 05/19/2025, Certified Nurse Aide #21 used a stand pivot transfer without assistance resulting in a fractured right arm. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #167 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. Findings include: The facility policy Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment and Misappropriation of Resident Property, last reviewed 01/15/2024, documented that each resident would be free from abuse or neglect and would not be tolerated. The facility policy Interdisciplinary Care Plans, last reviewed 04/20/2026, documented the facility would develop and implement individualized care plans for each resident to meet the resident's needs.The facility policy Assistive Devices and Equipment, last reviewed 04/26/2026, documented staff were to be trained and use care planned devices for resident mobility and safety.Resident #167 had diagnoses of…

  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 plan of correction
• Actual harm · Gcited before2025-05-09 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interviews during the abbreviated survey (NY00379334), the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care according to professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1 developed abdominal distention with pain, had one bowel movement in 6 days, was provided bowel medications without a physician order, and was not assessed by a qualified professional in a timely manner. Subsequently, Resident #1 was hospitalized for a bowel obstruction requiring emergency surgery. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. Findings include: The facility policy, Bowel Management Protocol, reviewed 3/21/2021, documented certified nurse aides documented bowel movements into the electronic medical record. The licensed nurse monitored the electronic medical record dashboard for alerts of residents with no bowel movements in 72 hours and would initiate the bowel protocol. If no bowel…

  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
• Actual harm · Gcited before2019-10-25 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  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 pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 4 residents (Resident # 158) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, Resident #158 developed a pressure ulcer that was not treated timely and there was no evidence pressure relief interventions were implemented to promote healing. Subsequently the pressure ulcer worsened, and the resident required surgical intervention to promote healing. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #158 that was not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: The facility's Pressure Injury Management Policy reviewed 6/11/19 documented a head to toe skin assessment and Braden Scale Risk for Pressure Ulcer would be completed by a registered nurse (RN) within 8 hours of admission, any resident admitted to the sub-acute…

  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
• Actual harm · Gcited before2019-10-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  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 surveys (NY00232603) the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (Residents #227) reviewed for accidents hazards. Specifically, Resident #227 sustained second degree burns (partial-thickness) from an electric fireplace (portable space heater) located in the main lobby. (See Life Safety Code recertification survey K781 Portable Space heaters.) This resulted in actual harm to Resident #227 that was not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: The 8/30/19 Electrical Safety for Residents policy documented residents will be protected from injury associated with the use of electrical devices, including electrocution, burns and fire. Portable space heaters are not permitted in resident areas. Resident #227 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including diabetes with…

  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 · Dcited before2026-06-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
  Honor 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 observations and interviews (iQIES #2730965), the facility failed to ensure a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for one of five units (Maple unit) reviewed. Specifically, the Maple Unit dining room ceiling leaked. Findings include:The facility policy Maintenance and Repairs, last reviewed 05/15/2025, documented the facility ensured all units were free of all hazards and maintained in good repair. Regular audits of the building were conducted and assured the building was in optimal condition and supported a safe and well-maintained environment.The following observations were made of the Maple unit dining room:-On 06/22/2026 at 12:17 PM, there was a ceiling tile above a table that seated eight residents and 75% of the tile was stained brown. At 4:18 PM, it was raining outside, and the stained ceiling tile was dripping. There was no receptacle to collect the drainage and no wet floor sign. There was an approximately 2 feet by 2 feet puddle on the floor. There was one resident watching television in the dining room.-On 06/23/2026 at 8:29 AM, the stained ceiling…

  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 plan of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-08-07 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — pattern
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  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 8/1/2024-8/7/2024, the facility did not ensure the right to reside and receive services with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 10 of 10 residents (Residents #2, #18, #53, #58, #59, #66, #67, #101, and #312) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #2, #18, #53, #58, #59, #66, #67, #101, and #312 were previously assessed for appropriate siderail use to improve functional independence and bed mobility, and their siderails were subsequently removed without explanation or replacement of an alternative positioning device. Findings included: The facility policy, Use of Side Rails, originally dated 4/10/2028 and reviewed 7/29/2024 documented the facility was siderail free. All admissions into the facility would be evaluated by the rehabilitation therapy department to assess their ability for mobility and transfer. Upon the results of the therapy evaluation, alternative methods of mobility and transfer would be put into place should the assessment determine the 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-07 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
  Honor 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 and abbreviated (NY00345143) surveys conducted 8/1/2024-8/7/2024, the facility did not ensure residents had a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 3 of 3 resident units ([NAME], [NAME], and [NAME]) reviewed. Specifically, water temperatures were greater than 120 degrees Fahrenheit in shower rooms and resident bathrooms on [NAME] and [NAME] Units; The bathroom floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] on the [NAME] Unit was in disrepair and stained with a brown substance at the base of the toilet; resident wheelchairs on [NAME] and [NAME] Units were unclean; and the mechanical lifts on [NAME] and [NAME] Units were unclean with debris on the footplates. Findings include: The facility admission Agreement documented the facility strived to provide an environment that was safe, clean, comfortable, and welcoming to its residents, families, and friends. The facility policy, Water Temperatures, dated 2/23/2022 documented water temperatures…

  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 · E2024-08-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 8/1/2024 - 8/7/2024, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen and in 3 of 3 nursing unit kitchenettes ([NAME], [NAME], and [NAME] Units) reviewed. Specifically, the main kitchen walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer floor were unclean and soiled with food debris; the dishwasher in the main kitchen was not working properly; the refrigerator in the [NAME] Unit kitchenette had a broken temperature gauge and was not at an appropriate temperature; the refrigerator/freezer in the [NAME] Unit pantry was unclean with food spills; and the [NAME] Unit microwave was unclean with food debris, and the sink was leaking into the cabinet below. Findings include: The facility policy, Cleanliness and Sanitation, dated 3/18/2024 documented high standards of cleanliness and sanitation would be maintained to achieve 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-07 · 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

  Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/1/2024-8/7/2024, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #14 and #312) reviewed and for 2 of 2 staff (Licensed Practical Nurses #1 and #2) observed. Specifically, Resident #312's and #14's urinary catheter drainage tubing was laying directly on the floor; Licensed Practical Nurse #2 provided wound care without performing appropriate hand hygiene or taking precautions to prevent contamination of the wound and clean supplies; and Licensed Practical Nurse #1 did not practice appropriate glove usage or hand hygiene during multiple resident care tasks. Findings include: The facility policy, Dressings-Dry/Clean, revised 11/21/2022 documented scissors would be disinfected; gloves would be changed, and hands would be washed after removing soiled dressings; 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-08-07 · tag F0626 — isolated
  Permit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
  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 (NY00348869) surveys conducted 8/1/2024-8/7/2024, the facility did not permit a resident to return to the facility after they were hospitalized for 1 of 1 resident (Resident # 360) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #360 was sent to the hospital for evaluation for behaviors, was medically cleared by the hospital to return to the facility, was transported back to the facility, and was refused return to the facility. Findings include: The facility's undated admission Agreement documented a resident may have a medical illness or other matter that required them to be away from the facility for some period. All nursing home residents had the option to have their bed kept available for their return. The facility policy, Resident Transfer and Discharge, effective 2/22/2029, documented emergency transfers to an acute care facility were considered a facility-initiated transfer, not a discharge. The resident must be permitted to return to 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 8/1/2024-8/7/2024, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 3 of 5 residents (Residents #48, #57, and #88) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #48 did not receive a lid for their hot beverage cups as care planned and did not have their palm guard (contracture management device) applied as care planned; Resident #57 did not have their palm guards applied as care planned; and Resident #88 did not have their elastic tubular compression bandage (Tubigrip) applied as ordered. Findings include: The facility policy, Orthotic Devices, revised 8/1/2023, documented the purpose of orthotic devices was to maintain joint range of motion and elasticity and provide proper body alignment. The rehabilitation department would provide orthotic devices for residents who could benefit from their use. Nursing staff would be instructed in the proper position…

  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 · Dcited before2024-08-07 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/1/2024-8/7/2024 the facility did not ensure residents with pressure ulcers or at risk for pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #14 and #312) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #27 and #312 had specialty air mattresses (mattresses that provides air flow to relieve pressure) that did not have individualized settings and were not monitored to ensure appropriate settings were used. Findings include: The facility policy, Prevention of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries, dated 5/24/2024, documented the purpose was to provide information regarding identification of pressure ulcer/injury risk factors and interventions for specific risk factors. Appropriate support surfaces were selected based on the resident's mobility, continence, skin moisture…

  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 · Dcited before2024-08-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  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 conducted 8/1/2024-8/7/2024 the facility did not ensure each resident received adequate supervision and the environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #44 and #106) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #44's bed was not maintained in the low position as care planned; and Resident #106's meal was reheated in a microwave by nursing staff and the temperature was not checked prior to serving the meal to the resident. Findings include: The facility policy, Managing Falls and Fall Documentation, last reviewed 5/22/2024 documented team members would seek to identify and document resident risk factors and identify interventions related to the resident specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and try to minimize complications from falls. The facility policy, Food Safety, last reviewed 3/18/2024 documented accurate food thermometers were available and used by all…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-08-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  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

  Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/1/2024-8/7/2024, the facility did not ensure residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #88) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #88 received oxygen at a higher flow rate than the physician ordered. Findings include: The facility policy, Oxygen Concentrator Initiation/ Discontinuation, reviewed 12/15/2020 documented the licensed nurse was responsible to ensure the physician orders for the resident were checked. The flow rate was charted in the resident record every shift. Resident #88 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease), pleural effusion (fluid buildup between the lung and the chest wall) and need for assistance with personal care. The 6/25/2023 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, had shortness of breath, and required oxygen therapy. The comprehensive care plan initiated 4/15/2024 and revised 6/14/2024…

  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

“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.

“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.

Fines & penalties

$80,558 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

• $54,304 — penalty dated 2025-05-09
• $26,254 — penalty dated 2024-05-24

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.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 13 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.

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 $125K 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