No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Fort Hudson Nursing Center INC

319 Upper Broadway, Fort Edward, NY 12828 · Non profit - Corporation · 196 certified beds · (518) 747-2811 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (518) 747-2811 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • 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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
340 Main St · (518) 747-4117 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens1.9 mi
92 Main St · (518) 747-9184 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
354 Broadway
Park
Bradley Ave · (518) 747-5594 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased25.4%14.1%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.8%5.8%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.5%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.4%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.2%19.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.1%3.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened22.1%12.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.4%13.2%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.0%6.5%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control26.3%19.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table4.7%13.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.3%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.2%78.8%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission24.0%20.6%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit6.7%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.701.701.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.381.361.80better

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.

53.5% 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 154 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

53.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
53.6%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.26U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.13hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 53.6% 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 69 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 37% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF53.5%CMS range 45.0–59.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.3%CMS range 6.7–14.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge53.6%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge60.9%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge55.1%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified93.8%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay5.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened2.5%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.0%CMS range 3.4–10.17.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.061.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.42
RN hours/ resident / day
0.97
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.01
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.40
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.16
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 196 beds and averages 184.5 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 12 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 3.40 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 2.01 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 2.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.62 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.53 to 0.16 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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-12-06)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2021-12-13)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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 · F2024-12-06 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespread
    Provide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification, the facility did not ensure provision of sufficient nursing staff to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident throughout the facility. Specifically, the facility's minimum staffing levels of Certified Nursing Aides and Licensed Practical Nurses were not met every day on multiple shifts and multiple units, from 12/01/2024 - 12/05/2024. In addition, record review indicated resident grievances related to staffing shortages, there were observations of delayed call light responses times, and resident complaints of low staffing. This is evidenced by: Based on the facility assessment, dated 8/28/2024, the following was the current staffing plan, presented as the number of Full Time Employees by position by shift. 6 AM-2 PM (days) 2 PM-10 PM(evenings) 10 PM-6 AM (nights) Registered Nurse 11 2 1 Licensed Practical Nurse 10 10 5 Certified Nursing…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · tag F0554 — isolated
    Allow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure residents could safely self-administer medication when clinically appropriate for 2 (Residents #35 and #168) of 2 residents reviewed for medication administration. Specifically, (a) Resident #35 was observed with their prescribed Albuterol inhaler on their overbed table on 12/02/2024 and 12/04/2024, and (b) Resident #168 was observed changing their empty oxygen tank to a full oxygen tank on 12/03/2024 and setting the flow rate. There was no documented evidence that Resident #'s 35 and 168 were assessed to determine their ability to safely self-administer medications, or for physician orders for self-administration of medications. This is evidenced by: The facility Medication Self-Administration Policy, dated 9/2017, documented that staff and practitioners would assess each resident's mental and physical abilities to determine whether self-administering medications was clinically appropriate for the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the development and implementation of a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 1 (Residents #334) of 35 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #334 received oxygen that was not noted in the care plan. This is evidenced by: The Policy titled Care Planning dated 09/21/2017, documented the purpose of the policy was to have a written plan for staff to follow to provide care to a resident of the facility. Upon admission the 48-hour care plan would be developed and reviewed with the resident and/or the health care proxy within 48 hours. The care plan would be completed by the first care plan meeting within 14 days of admission. The care plan will be added to as new issues arise and when recognized plans have been resolved. Resident #334 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of hypertension, paroxysmal atrial…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement 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 records review and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident's drug/medication regimen was managed and monitored to promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being for 2 (Residents #59 and #86) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, for Residents #59 and #86, as-needed psychotropic medication orders did not include stop dates. This is evidenced by: The policy and procedure titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated 6/2024, stated as needed orders for psychotropic medications would be time limited. Resident #59 Resident #59 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of dementia, anxiety disorder and depression. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident was usually able to be understood and could usually understand others; the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #59 had an order for lorazepam (a sedative), 0.5 milligrams by mouth every 6 hours as…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident received accommodated resident choices, intolerances, and preferences. This was identified for one (Resident #82) of 35 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #82 had a dietician recommendation, signed by the physician, to discontinue a collagen supplement. For 35 days after the recommendation, the collagen was still ordered. This is evidenced by: The Policy titled Pressure Injury (PI)/ and Wound Care dated 11/15/2024 documented the facility was to ensure that the residents would receive wound care consistent with resident needs, goals, and recognized standards of practice. The procedure was that the nurse manager or designated registered nurse, dietician, physical therapist, and other interdisciplinary team members as needed would evaluate resident's clinical condition and pressure ulcer risk factors. The interdisciplinary team would define and implement interventions as appropriate. The facility would maintain a system to assure that 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that were accurately documented and completed for 3 (Residents #21, 144. and #171) of 35 residents reviewed. Specifically, (a.) for Resident #21, the facility incontinence care provided was not documented; (b.) for Residents #144 and #171 the care provided by Certified Nurse Aides were not consistently documented, including the amount of meals consumed, consumption of supplements, and nourishment for bedtime snacks. This is evidenced by: A review of policy titled Documentation for Certified Nursing Assistants dated 11/22/2010 documented all documentation of care delivered to a resident by a Certified Nursing Assistant would be done using the Point Click Care (PCC) kiosks. The policy stated care should be entered as close as possible after the care had been rendered and staff was to enter information at the kiosk at…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-12-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, manufacturer directions review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the concentration of quaternary ammonium compound chemical sanitizing rinse (QAC) was less than that required by the manufacturer, shelving and sections of the floor were not in good repair, and equipment and floors required cleaning. This is evidenced as follows. The kitchen was inspected on 12/08/2021 at 9:39 AM. The concentration of QAC used to sanitize food contact equipment at the 3-compartment sink was found to be less than 150 parts per million (ppm) when measured at 70 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and the concentration of QAC used to sanitize food contact equipment at the preparation sink was found to be less than 150 ppm when measured at 71 F. The manufacturer's label directions stated the concentration is to be between 150 ppm and 400 ppm when the solution is measured between 65 F and 75 F. The tabletop mixer, can opener 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2021-12-13 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a need to alter treatment significantly for 1 (Resident #57) of 1 resident reviewed for dental services. Specifically, for Resident #57, the facility did not ensure the physician was notified when a physician ordered medication, Kenalog in Orabase (triamcinolone- a corticosteroid used to reduce swelling and ulcers in the mouth) was not available to be administered. This is evidenced by: Resident #57: Resident #57 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 10/1/2021, documented the resident was cognitively intact, could understand others and could make self understood. The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Medication Administration and Treatment Documentation last revised 3/29/2012, documented when a medication was not…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-07-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observation and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not maintain floors and floor coverings in a clean and sanitary manner in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Floors are to be maintained in good repair and are to be smooth, durable, and not absorbent. Specifically, the floor of the dish machine room and walk in cooler #2 were not maintained in a sanitary manner. This is evidenced as follows. The main kitchen was inspected on 07/09/2019 at 9:39 AM. The floor tiles in the dish room of the main kitchen were not properly grouted, and the floor of the walk-in freezer #2 was covered in a layer of brown debris under the storage racks. The Director of Food Service stated in an interview on 07/09/2019 at 10:15 AM, that the facility just power washed the floors in the dish room and noticed that the floor needed to be re-grouted. Additionally, he stated that the floor in the walk-in cooler will be cleaned. 10 NYCRR 415.14(h); Chapter 1 State Sanitary Code Subpart 14-1, 14-1.110 (b), 14-1.110 (d), 14-1.150 (c) 14-1.170.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-07-12 · tag F0582 — isolated
    Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
    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 medical record review and staff interview during the recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that resident and/or their designated representative were fully informed of potential financial liability for rehabilitative services during a non-covered stay. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that residents who remained in the facility and received covered rehabilitative services were provided with the Skilled Nursing Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN), Form CMS-10055 or residents who were discharged from the facility were not provided with the Notice to Medicare Provider Non-coverage (NOMNC), form CMS-10123. This was evident for three (3) out of three (3) sampled residents reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notification (Residents #'s 93, 162, and #439). This is evidenced by: A policy titled Medicare Notice of Non-Coverage dated April 2018 documented: Form CMS-10055 (2018) - To be used when Medicare Part A services are determined to no longer be required or if Medicare coverage…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-07-12 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 interviews, and record reviews during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for two (Resident #'s 36 and #125) of thirty-five residents reviewed for accurate resident assessments. Specifically; for Resident #125, the facility did not ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) when the reason for the resident's weight loss was documented as intentional rather than unintentional, and for Resident #36, whose medical record did not include a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the facility did not ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) did not include documentation that the resident had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. This is evidenced: Resident #36: The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses of mood disorder, delusional disorder, and major depressive disorder. The MDS dated [DATE] documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition and was able to make herself understood and understand others. A review of…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-07-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that residents in need of respiratory care, received such care consistent with professional standards for one (1) resident (Residents #37) of one (1) resident reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #37, the facility did not ensure an oxygen tank was replaced when empty. This is evidenced by: The Policy and Procedure for Oxygen Use and Storage, last updated 8/31/17, documented, nurses are to check each shift, or more frequently as appropriate, the oxygen tank to ensure appropriate flow and sufficient oxygen is present in the tank Resident #37: This resident was admitted [DATE], with diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea, respiratory failure, type II diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, atrial fibrillation and morbid obesity. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented the resident was without impaired cognition, was able to understand others and was able to be understood. The physician'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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-07-12 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a policy was developed for the monthly medication regimen review (MRR) that included time frames for the different steps in the process and steps the pharmacist must take when he or she identifies an irregularity that requires urgent action to protect the resident. This is evidenced by: A facility Policy titled Timeliness of Medication Regimen Review (MRR) Reports approved 1/2/19, documented that when the consultant pharmacist identified an irregularity that required immediate or urgent action, the pharmacist would notify the Director of Nursing (DON) and the assigned nurse at the time the irregularity was identified. The policy did not include the timeframe for contacting the physician. During an interview on 7/12/19 at 1:10 PM, the Administrator stated that she thought the policy did addressed the timeframe's. 10NYCRR 415.18(c)(2)

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-07-12 · tag F0813 — isolated
    Have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility did not ensure a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors was developed to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption. Specifically, the facility did not ensure facility staff would assist dependent residents in accessing and consuming food brought in by family or visitors. This is evidenced by: A Policy and Procedure titled Food From Outside Sources dated 3/19, did not include documentation of how the facility would assist dependent residents in accessing and consuming food brought in by family or visitors. During an interview on 7/12/19 at 10:18 AM, the Food Service Director (FSD) stated the policy did not include a process or procedure to ensure dependent residents could access and consume foods brought in by family or visitors. 10NYCRR415.14 (h)

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANYOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTERESTsince 07/11/2024
GARA, PHILIPIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2004
COBURN, JOHNIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/26/2000
CRUIKSHANK, ANDREWIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/28/2000
WAITE, AMANDAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/07/2014

CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$19.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-33.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$378K
Related-party expense1% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 77%Medicare 4%Other / private 18%

About 77% 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 $378K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

Cost & finances

$412per resident / day
operating cost
$12,529per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$309per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in New York
$15,528/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$16,729/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,110/mo
Assisted living

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 335300. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-06, 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.

What to do next