Good Shepherd Village At Endwell
14 Village Drive, Endwell, NY 13760 · Non profit - Other · 32 certified beds · (607) 757-3102 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 2 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 | 11.8% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.9% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.2% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.2% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.7% | 13.2% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.8% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.7% | 6.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.2% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.7% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.6% | 20.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.5% | 9.6% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.36 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.78 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 30.0% 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 20 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 1.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 6.0–17.6 | 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 | 30.0% | 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 | 30.0% | 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 | 40.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.1% | 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 | 3.1% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.75 | 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 32 beds and averages 30.3 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.73 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.87 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.63 is at or above 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 4.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.77 on weekdays — 3% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.79 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-20 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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 interviews during the recertification survey conducted 11/19/2025-11/20/2025, the facility did not verify the presence of advance directives or the resident's wishes regarding cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, upon readmission, for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #21) reviewed. Specifically, during a hospitalization Resident #21 changed their advance directives to include cardio-pulmonary resuscitation should they be found without a pulse, their readmission orders did not reflect their preference and there was a do not resuscitate (allow natural death) order in place for two (2) days after readmission. Findings include: The undated facility policy EMOLST (Electronic Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment)/Advanced Directives, retrieved 11/2025, documented residents had the right to direct their own medical treatment, including withholding or withdrawing life sustaining treatment and their wishes were documented in their electronic medical record. Hospital advance…
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 · Fcited before2024-03-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024 - 3/21/2024, 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. Specifically, the facility's infection prevention control plan was not reviewed annually and did not include water management as required. Findings include: The facility policy Infection Prevention and Control Program dated 2018, documented the Infection Prevention and Control Committee, Medical Director, Director of Nursing Services, and other key clinical administrative staff review the infection control policies at least annually. The review would include updating or supplementing policies and procedures as needed. There was no documented evidence the facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program plan included water management and measures to prevent the growth of Legionella (a bacteria that causes Legionnaire's disease) and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-21 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/21/2024, the facility did not ensure they had a process in place for residents to have their grievances addressed appropriately for 6 of 6 anonymous residents. Specifically, 6 anonymous residents present at the Resident Council meeting stated they did not know how to file a grievance. Findings include: The facility policy, Grievances, Concerns and Suggestions revised 7/29/2019 documented all the residents would have a right to voice grievances without fear of reprisal. The social worker was responsible to present and explain to the resident/family/designated representative information pertinent to a resident's grievance rights upon admission. The policy did not include education provided to the resident on how to file a grievance. The facility's Grievance, Concerns, and Suggestion Tracking Logs dated 7/1/2023 to 12/31/2023 and 1/1/2024 to 6/30/2024 documented there were no grievances for these time periods. During a Resident Council Meeting on 3/18/2024 at 2:07 PM, six anonymous 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 · E2021-11-10 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00285046) surveys conducted from 11/8/21-11/10/21, the facility failed to ensure residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #3 ,4, and 34) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #3 did not receive incontinence care and was not shaved as planned, Resident #4 did not receive timely meal assistance, and Resident #34 did not receive nail care as planned. Findings include: The facility's undated certified nursing assistant (CNA) competency skill check list included feeding (enhancing the dining experience), incontinence care, and hygiene (nail and skin care). The facility policy Urinary Incontinence - Toileting Needs revised 6/28/18 documented any resident who is incontinent of bladder will receive appropriate treatment and services. 1) Resident #3 had diagnoses including…
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 · E2021-11-10 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted from 11/8/21-11/10/21, the facility failed to provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 3 of 3 meal trays tested (breakfast, lunch, dinner). Specifically, food was not served at palatable and safe temperatures for the 11/8/21 dinner meal and the 11/9/21 breakfast meal. The 11/8/21 dinner meal and the 11/9/21 lunch meal were not palatable or appetizing. Findings include: The facility's mealtimes were documented as 8 AM for breakfast, 12:30 PM for lunch, and 6 PM for dinner. The facility policy Sanitary Conditions revised 2/22/16, documented all perishable foods must be 45 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or below. Hot foods should be held at 140 degrees F or above. During a resident meeting on 11/8/21 at 1:58 PM, 3 anonymous residents reported the food was often cold and the meat was often tough to chew. During the dinner meal observation on 11/8/21 at 6:07 PM, the BBQ chicken breast was measured at 131 degrees F and the macaroni salad was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-11-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey conducted from 11/8/21-11/10/21 the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 main kitchen reviewed. Specifically, there were undated and unlabeled foods, unclean areas and dented cans observed in the main kitchen. Findings include: The facility dining services policy Sanitary Conditions dated 2/22/2016 documents food is stored in such a manner as to be protected against contamination. Storage areas must be kept dry and clean from debris. Plastic containers with tight-fitting lids or resealable plastic bags should be used to store dry items that have been opened. All products that have been previously opened should be labeled and dated. The facility dining services policy Equipment and Utensil Cleaning and Sanitization dated 2/17/16 did not include the procedure for cleaning food service equipment other than dishware, pots, pans, and utensils. The following was observed during a kitchen tour on 11/8/21: - at 10:16 AM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-11-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey 11/8/21 - 11/10/21 the facility did not 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 including COVID-19 for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #83) reviewed for pressure ulcers, 1 of 2 residents (Resident #183) reviewed for transmission based precautions and 3 observed staff (certified nurse aide, CNA #4, registered nurse (RN) Unit Manager #6 and the Director of Nursing, DON). Specifically, licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 did not perform appropriate hand hygiene and did not keep clean supplies separate from dirty supplies during a wound dressing for Resident #83; CNA #15 was observed not wearing appropriate PPE (personal protective equipment) when entering the room of Resident #183 who was on isolation/transmission-based precautions for potential COVID-19 exposure; and CNA…
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 · E2021-11-10 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
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 11/8/21-11/10/21 the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 3 of 3 dishwashers (main kitchen dishwasher, short hall and long hall dining room dishwashers). Specifically, the main kitchen dishwasher had a component that was not working, the short hall dining room dishwasher was not working, and there was water underneath and around the long hall dining room dishwasher. Findings include: During an interview on 11/8/21 at 9:45 AM, health care server #14 stated the short hall dining room dishwasher had been broken for 2 months. They stated that kitchen staff would have to bring dishes down the stairs to the main kitchen, and sometimes to the memory care unit long hall dining room to wash dishes. There was no out of order sign observed on the dishwasher in the short hall dining room. During an observation on 11/8/21 at 9:50 AM the long hall dining room dishwasher was leaking. There were towels on the floor underneath the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-11-10 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 11/8/21-11/10/21, the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #83) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #83's wound dressing was not changed as ordered. Findings include: The facility policy Clean Wound Dressing revised 7/9/19 documents it is the policy of the facility that clean wound dressings will be applied and changed as per medical provider's orders by a licensed nurse. Resident #83 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm (cancer) of specified parts of peritoneum (the tissue that lines the abdominal wall and covers most of the organs in the abdomen), Type 2 diabetes, and right hip replacement. The 10/11/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-11-10 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted from 11/8/21-11/10/21, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #26). Specifically, Resident #26's blood pressure medication was administered, and the resident's blood pressure and heart rate were not obtained prior to administration per physician ordered parameters. Findings include: The facility policy Medication Administration - General Guidelines revised 7/17/18 documents medications are administered in accordance with orders from the medical provider. Resident #26 had diagnoses including end stage renal (kidney) disease, atrial fibrillation (abnormal heartbeat) and congestive heart failure. The 8/26/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had intact cognition, required supervision with setup or one-person physical assist with most activities of daily living (ADL) and was receiving dialysis treatment. A physician order dated 6/4/21 documented metoprolol tartrate (blood…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-11-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted [DATE]-[DATE], the facility failed to label drugs and biologicals in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 1 of 1 medication cart (short hall medication cart) reviewed. Specifically, the medication cart for the short hall contained 2 insulin pens that were not labeled with the date they had been opened. Findings include: The facility policy Insulin Injection Administration revised [DATE] documents the procedure includes: obtain insulin pen from refrigerator and allow warming to room temperature. Label with resident identifiers, date opened, and expiration date. If using an insulin pen, follow manufacturer instructions. The undated facility policy Medication Storage documents medications are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturers' recommendations or those of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-11-10 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the 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 11/8/21- 11/10/21, the facility failed to ensure the resident menus were followed for 1 of 5 meals observed. Specifically, on 11/9/21 the approved, preplanned, and posted menu documented boiled potatoes were to be served at the lunch meal. 10 residents on the short hall were served mashed potatoes which was not an approved menu substitution, was not updated on the posted menu, and residents were not notified of the change. Finding included: The facility's 1/7/21, Week 4 Day 3 Menu documented the boiled potatoes were to be served with the lunch meal. The facility policy Menu Item Substitution dated 1/2016, documents appropriate menu substitutions will be made in the event pre-planned menu items are unavailable. The food production employee will notify the general manager or clinical designee of unavailable menu items. The clinical staff will approve menu substitutes. Notice of menu substitution will be posted adjacent to the menu on all resident units. Menu substitution will be tracked on…
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 · C2024-03-21 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/18/2024-3/21/2024, the facility did not ensure the results of the most recent Federal/State survey were posted in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, and legal representatives of residents for 1 of 1 Federal Health Recertification survey (11/10/2021). Specifically, the results of the most recent Federal health recertification survey conducted 11/10/2021 were in the temporary main entrance to the Assisted Living residence and were not accessible to all residents without having to ask for assistance. Findings include: The facility policy Resident Rights, reviewed by the facility 4/21/2022, documented the facility would ensure the basic right of each nursing home resident to be treated with dignity and respected in all aspects of their life as outlined in State and Federal regulations. The facility would ensure each resident's right to exercise all rights without fear of reprisal. During a Resident Council meeting on 3/18/2024 at 2:07 PM, six anonymous residents in attendance stated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGS. INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/10/2006 |
| SEIER, JUDITH | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/15/2014 |
| ALLABAUGH, FREDRICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| ANDREWS, JILL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| BUNNELL, KATHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| HALBERT, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/02/2017 |
| HYLE, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| KEENAN, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2001 |
| LACEY, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2012 |
| LANOUETTE, DAWN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| MARTINICHIO, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2012 |
| RONEY, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| SEVEY, KYLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| WAGER, ELSIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| WEBSTER, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| MACKEY, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 335859. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-20, 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.