Chautauqua Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
10836 Temple Road, Dunkirk, NY 14048 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 216 certified beds · (716) 366-6400 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- the CMS record shows $8,926 in federal fines (most recent 2024-01-08)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.1% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.0% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.0% | 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 | 5.0% | 6.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.1% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.9% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 79.7% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.3% | 9.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.31 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.66 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
44.3% 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 157 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.7% 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 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% 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.
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 | 44.3%CMS range 38.5–50.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 6.5–13.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 45.7% | 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 | 35.1% | 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 | 42.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 3.9% | 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 | 5.7%CMS range 2.9–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 216 beds and averages 206.4 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 10 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 2.87 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.42 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.62 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 3.06 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-03-27 · tag F0568 — widespreadProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
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 conducted during the survey the facility failed to ensure the individual financial record was available to the residents through quarterly statements and upon request for six (6) (Resident #18, #19, #136, #138, #164, and #167) of six (6) residents reviewed. Specifically, there was no evidence the facility provided quarterly statements to residents or their representatives and there was no evidence of receipted accounting records for personal fund transactions from the facility's store.The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Financial Affairs dated 10/2016 documented Residents may manage his/her personal financial affairs will be given at least a quarterly accounting of financial transactions made on his/her behalf. A separate receipt book is to be maintained for recording withdrawals. Receipts should include the residents' name, amount withdrawn, and a brief description of what it is for and signed by the residents or the power of attorney on file. When reimbursing…
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 · F2026-03-27 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — widespreadTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during the survey the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency) for six (6) (Resident #18, # 19, #136, #138, #164, and #167) of six (6) residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not report to the State Agency when there was reasonable suspicion of misappropriation of resident funds. This resulted in no actual harm with the potential to affect all residents, that is substandard quality of care.The findings are: Refer to F 568 Scope and severity F The policy and procedure titled Facility Incident/Abuse Investigation and Reporting revised 09/2025…
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 · F2026-03-27 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during the survey the facility was not administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, the Administrator did not provide adequate oversight of the Business Office Manager to ensure adequate accounting and records of personal funds. Additionally, when there was reasonable suspicion of misappropriation of resident funds, it was not reported to the State Agency within the required timeframe.The findings are: REFER TO: F 568 - Accounting and Records of Personal Funds scope and severity F F 609 - Reporting Alleged Violations scope and severity F The policy and procedure titled Financial Affairs dated 10/2016 documented residents may manage his/her personal financial affairs will be given at least a quarterly accounting of financial transactions made on his/her behalf. A separate receipt book is to be maintained for recording withdrawals. Receipts should include the residents…
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 before2026-03-27 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the survey the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (1) (Resident #7) of one (1) resident reviewed for non-pressure related skin concerns. Specifically, staff did not report, assess, and monitor a skin injury on the resident's right shin. The findings are:The policy and procedure titled Skin Observation dated 06/29/2019 documented to report findings of assessment to the unit manager/supervisor. The unit manager/supervisor will initiate and complete a weekly nursing status documentation. The unit manager/ supervisor will notify the provider and obtain orders for appropriate treatment. Resident #7 had diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, hemiplegia (paralysis that affects one side of the body) affecting the left side, and a history of transient ischemic attack (a temporary blockage of blood flow to the brain). The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-27 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a survey the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a suprapubic Foley catheter (a tube inserted directly into the bladder to drain urine) received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for one (1) (Resident #10) of three (3) residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #10's gravity drainage bag (used to collect urine) was not kept below the level of the resident's bladder.The findings are:The policy and procedure titled Catheter (Urinary & Suprapubic) Insertion and Removal last revised 08/2024 documented indwelling and intermittent catheters were utilized, when necessary, based on current professional standards of practice. The facility must ensure that the resident receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible. To achieve a free flow of urine and maintain infection control, collecting bags were always kept below the level of the bladder.Resident #10 had diagnoses including urinary tract infection, retention of urine,…
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 · D2026-03-27 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolatedRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the survey the facility failed to ensure routine inspection, maintenance, and safe functioning of bed frames and mattresses was conducted as part of a regular maintenance program for one (1) (Resident #7) of one (1) resident reviewed. Specifically, Resident #7's bed frame lacked mattress retainers (bars that hold the mattress in place) according to the manufacture's specifications. In addition, routine inspections of beds had not been conducted since 2023.The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Maintenance, module management of environment of care maintenance dated 10/2024 documented the facilities maintenance department is responsible for all equipment and furnishings of the facility are repaired as needed by the maintenance department. Beds, bedtables, headboards, chairs and dressers are maintained in good condition. Resident related medical equipment will be inspected as per manufactures policy, along with preventative maintenance scheduled based on manufacturers' recommendations. Review of an…
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 · D2025-03-05 · 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 interviews and record review conducted during a Complaint Investigation (NY00339323) the facility did not ensure they consulted with the resident's physician when there was a need to alter treatment significantly for one (1) (Resident #1) of three (3) residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not ensure they consulted with the resident's physician when a medication was not administered as ordered, resulting in 20 missed doses. The finding is: The policy titled Medication/Treatment Administration Documentation, last revised 6/24, documented when medications or treatments are not available for administration as ordered inform the Nursing Supervisor immediately, Emergency medication kit is used, and the medical provider is notified, and immediate medication delivery is requested. The policy titled Change in Resident's Condition, Medication/Treatment or status, last revised 2/2025, documented the resident and/or responsible party and the attending physician are promptly notified in changes of care and resident condition. Nursing services will notify the resident's…
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 · D2025-03-05 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00339323) the facility did not ensure that pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing and administering of all drugs and biologicals) met the needs of each resident. Specifically, for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed the facility did not ensure medications were acquired and administered in accordance with the physician's orders and professional standards. Resident #1 was not administered 20 doses of their antipsychotic medication. The finding is: The policy titled Ordering Medications/Treatments from Pharmacy, last revised 5/2023, documented medications and treatments would be obtained as prescribed by the prescribing practitioner for individual resident use. The policy titled Medication/Treatment Discrepancy/Error, last revised 3/2011, documented the purpose of the policy was to assure proper medication/treatment administration and compliance with the legal requirements of medication administration and to report all errors in…
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 · D2024-08-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 interview and record review conducted during an Abbreviated survey (Complaint #NY00337078) the facility did not ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1 was left alone in the bathroom while attached to a sit to stand lift and had a fall that resulted in a bruise to the side of their head. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled, Accident/Incident Investigation and Prevention, revised on 6/2023, stated the facility provides an environment that is free from accident hazards over which the facility has control and provides supervision and assistive devices to each resident to prevent avoidable accidents. The policy and procedure titled Interdisciplinary Care Planning, revised on 4/15/2024, stated the comprehensive care plan and [NAME] (guide used by staff to provide care) must always be current and accurately reflect the resident's status. The Care plan/[NAME] must…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-01 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 12/1/23, the facility did not ensure that a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming, personal and oral hygiene for one (Resident #166) of four residents reviewed. Specifically, a resident who was dependent on staff for hygiene with facial hair was not shaved or offered to be shaved after their shower. The finding is: The policy and procedure (P&P) titled Activities of Daily Living dated 11/2016 documented each resident will receive and the facility will provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment and plan of care. 1. Resident #166 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease (a type of dementia), depression, and weakness. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 10/17/23 documented the resident was rarely understood,…
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 before2023-12-01 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 12/1/23, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan for two (Resident #192 and #31) of seven reviewed for quality of care. Specifically, there was lack of wound assessments for Resident #192 and #31 and #192 lacked a care of plan revision to accurately reflect the resident's status. The findings are: The policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Documentation of Pressure Ulcer and Chronic Wounds revision date 6/23 documented pressure ulcers and chronic wounds are monitored closely to monitor effectiveness of treatment and change in risk factors. Pressure, stasis and/or chronic wounds will be monitored daily (with documentation, when a complication or change is identified) which should include observations of the area if no dressing present or status of the dressing, signs/symptoms of possible…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-10-01 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard Survey completed on 10/1/21, the facility did not have the evidence that all alleged violations of abuse, mistreatment and neglect were thoroughly investigated for one (Resident #138) of two residents reviewed. Specifically, the lack of investigation into facial bruising of unknown origin. The finding is: The policy and procedure (P&P) titled Incident Accident Reporting dated 6/21 documented it shall be the policy to distinguish between an accident and incident, but to nevertheless report and investigate both such events through formal, but distinctly different, reporting processes to rule out abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. All incidents are to be reported immediately to the Charge Nurse on duty and Nursing Supervisor will then be notified. For any incident/accident where abuse, neglect, mistreatment, is known or suspected, notify the Director of Nursing and Administrator immediately and begin investigation. The P&P titled Abuse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-10-01 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 10/1/21 the facility did not ensure that residents who use psychotropic drugs receive gradual dose reductions (GDR), and behavioral interventions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort, to discontinue these drugs. One (Resident #138) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication use was on Seroquel (anti-psychotic medication) without an adequate indication for continued use. In addition, there was no supporting documentation to justify an increased Seroquel dose on 9/21/21 and for continued use of the medication. The finding is: Review of a facility policy entitled Psychotropic Med Use Initiation and Gradual dose reduction dated 3/07 revealed residents were evaluated for the initiation/continued need for psychotropic medications and the determination of whether he/she is being maintained on the lowest effective dose. The Unit Coordinator in concert with the Interdisciplinary Team IDT determines…
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.
- No harm found · C2023-12-01 · tag F0836 — widespreadEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the Standard survey completed on 12/01/23, the facility did not operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes. Specifically, the facility was not in compliance with Section 915 of the 2020 Fire Code of New York State, which requires carbon monoxide detection in all rooms and sleeping areas with fuel-burning appliances, and on-going preventative maintenance of carbon monoxide detectors. This affected three (Ground, First, and Second floors) of three resident use floors and one of one Basement. The findings are: According to the 2020 Fire Code of New York State, patient rooms in nursing homes are defined as sleeping units. In residential and commercial buildings that contain a fuel burning appliance, carbon monoxide detection shall be installed in all rooms, occupiable space, dwelling units, sleeping areas, and sleeping units that contain a fuel-burning appliance. Additionally, the 2020 Fire Code of New York State stated carbon monoxide detectors shall be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$8,926 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $2,634 — penalty dated 2024-01-08
- $2,098 — penalty dated 2024-01-02
- $4,194 — penalty dated 2023-12-11
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BACCHI, ANTHONY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 01/01/2015 |
| FARBENBLUM, EDWARD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 01/01/2015 |
| HERSH, ISAAC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 27% | since 01/01/2015 |
| LIEBER, KENT | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| HART, COLLEEN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| INGHAM, JAMIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2019 |
| ROSSO, RALPH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 335485. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-27, 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.