Taconic Rehabilitation And Nursing At Ulster
One Wingate Way, Highland, NY 12528 · For profit - Individual · 120 certified beds · (845) 691-6800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $12,948 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-12)
- its independent health-inspection 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 fell from 4 to 2 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 | 14.5% | 14.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.1% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 0.9% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.4% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.9% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.3% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.4% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.5% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.7% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.2% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.1% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.4% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.2% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.22 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.47 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
54.6% 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 183 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 51.1% 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 131 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 0.55 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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
| 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 | 54.6%CMS range 47.1–61.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 8.3–14.3 | 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 | 51.1% | 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 | 48.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 58.8% | 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 | 95.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.6% | 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 | 3.4% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 4.5–10.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.00 | 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 120 beds and averages 98.7 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 21 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.11 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.22 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.31 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-03-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY REVISED 6/10/2025 IIDR Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 3/5/2025 through 3/12/2025, the facility did not ensure residents received quality of care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (1) of four (4) residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, on 12/12/24, Resident #69 was observed ambulating to the bathroom in their room unassisted, as Certified Nurse Aide # 8 assisted the resident their legs became weak, and the resident was lowered to the floor. Certified Nurse Aide #8 left Resident #69 to seek help, upon return Resident #69 was found in a different position, complained of pain to the right side of lower back, and sustained a hematoma (bruise) to the face. Resident #69 was transferred from the floor to the wheelchair and then to the bed by Licensed Practical Nurse #10 and two Certified Nurse Aides (#8 and one unidentified) without being physically assessed by Registered Nurse or Medical Provider. There was no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 3/5/2025 to 3/12/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignity and cared for in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life. This was evident for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #65) reviewed for Dignity. Specifically, Resident # 65 was observed ambulating wearing socks that were labeled with the resident's name on the top of the foot clearly visible to other residents, visitors and staff. The findings are: Resident #65 with diagnoses that included, but not limited to, Dementia, Anemia, and Hypertension. The Facility Policy titled Dignity, Respect, and Privacy in Treatment and Care revised 10/2023 documented that the Resident is treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of his/her dignity and individuality, including privacy in treatment and in care for his personal needs. The Annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 observations, record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 3/5/25-3/12/25, the facility did not ensure that they were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for Resident #30 reviewed for Call Systems/Environment. Specifically, the call system unit at the bedside for Resident #30 was not accessible. Findings include: The facility's policy titled Call Light revised 10/24/22 documented all residents will be provided with a method to communicate requests and needs directly to a staff or a centralized work area from the bedside, bathroom, and bathing areas, and to always place the call light within the resident's reach. The facility policy titled Fall Prevention revised July 2023 documented that all reasonable steps will be taken to keep the residents safe from falls and related injuries. Resident #30 was admitted with diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00346725) from 3/5/25 to 3/12/25, the facility did not ensure residents and/or representatives were provided written notification in a manner they understood for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for discharge (Resident #50, #202, #203, #68, and #69) who were transferred/discharged to the hospital. Specifically, Residents #50, #202, #203, #68 and #69 were transferred to the hospital and the facility was unable to provide evidence that written notice of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand was provided to the resident and the resident's representative(s). The findings are: The facility policy titled Discharge Notice and dated 3/25 documented; Nursing homes must provide residents with a detailed, written discharge/transfer notice which must include specific information regarding the resident's rights in this process. 1.Resident #50 was admitted with diagnoses including anxiety, acute respiratory failure and dependence 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00346725) from 3/5/25 to 3/12/25, the facility did not ensure residents or resident representatives were notified in writing of the facility bed hold policy for 5 of 5 residents (Resident #50, #202, #203, #68,#69) reviewed for discharge. Specifically, Residents #50, #202, #203, #68 and #69 were transferred to the hospital and the facility was unable to provide evidence that written notice of facility bed hold policy was given to the resident or their representatives. The findings are: The facility policy titled Bed Hold and Notice dated 8/24 documented the facility will notify the designated representative and/or the resident of the facility's bed reservation policies, verbally and in writing at the time of admission and at the time of transfer. 1.Resident #50 was admitted with diagnoses including anxiety, acute respiratory failure and dependence on mechanical ventilation. The Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool dated 1/4/24 documented the resident had intact cognition and 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 · D2025-03-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 from 3/5/25-3/12/25, the facility did not ensure that the Comprehensive Care Plans were reviewed and revised in a timely manner for 1 (Resident #68) of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, Resident #68's Skin Integrity at Risk Care Plan dated 11/15/24 and updated 2/12/25 documented to float Resident #68's heels, however it was not updated to include a new intervention when staff observed the resident moving their legs frequently when in bed. The findings are: The facility policy titled Interdisciplinary Care Planning revised 4/15/2024 documented a comprehensive resident centered care plan is developed by the interdisciplinary team upon admission and reviewed/ updated on a regular basis throughout the residence length of stay. The comprehensive care plan is reviewed and updated with changes and minimally on a quarterly basis. Resident #68 had diagnoses including protein calorie malnutrition, failure to thrive,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews and interviews during the recertification survey from 3/5/25 through 3/12/25, the facility did not ensure that a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #29) reviewed for activities of daily living. Specifically, Resident #29 required staff assistance with personal hygiene was observed on three (3) occasions with long, stained fingernails. Findings include: The facility policy titled nail care revised October 2011 documented that routine nail care is to be done following baths and showers whenever possible. The facility policy titled activities of daily living revised October 2023 documented that a resident is given the appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve his or her ability to carry out the activities of daily living including hygiene bathing dressing grooming and oral care. Resident #29 was admitted with diagnoses including heart failure,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · 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 and abbreviated surveys (NY00347643) from 3/5/25-3/12/25, the facility did not ensure residents at risk for pressure ulcers and residents who had pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #68 and #352) reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, 1) Resident #68's feet were not floated in bed as ordered and there was no documented evidence that wound care treatments were administered 10 of 48 times in February and 4 of 18 times in March, and 2) for Resident #352, there was no documented evidence that wound care treatments were administered five (5) times in May and June 2024 for their Stage 3 pressure ulcers to their coccyx, and left lateral ankle, and Stage 4 pressure ulcer to their left dorsal foot. The findings are: The 6/23 facility policy titled Documentation 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · 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 conducted during the recertification survey from [DATE]-[DATE], the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were maintained in accordance with currently accepted professional standards for expiration dates and storage. Specifically, 1) one (1) of two (2) medication rooms examined for medication storage, had a box of expired Jevity 1.5 feeding that was stored and being used; and expired nicotine patches were stored in 1 of 3 medication carts examined for medication storage. 2) Resident #60 was found with physician ordered Isosorbide, Amlodipine, Carvedilol (blood pressure pills), Sertraline (anti-depressant), Aspirin, Apixaban (blood thinner), Folic Acid (supplement), Levetiracetam (seizure medicine), Docusate (stool softener), and Omeprazole (anti-acid) in their room on their bedside table. The findings are: The facility policy titled Medication/Treatment Labeling and Storage revised 7/2013, documented medications/treatments are stored under proper…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 conducted during the recertification survey from 3/5/25 to 3/12/25, the facility did not ensure food was distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, nursing staff did not perform proper hand hygiene while serving beverages at lunch meal. The findings are: The facility policy last revised 11/2019, Dining Room Service documented dining room meal service is provided in a clean, comfortable and orderly atmosphere. On 3/5/25 at 12:28 PM in the main dining room, the Assistant Director of Nursing was observed serving beverages to multiple residents wearing disposable gloves and not changing gloves between service. The Assistant Director of Nursing touched the beverage cart handle, proceeded to pick up a resident's glass, touched the carafe/pitcher handle and replaced the glass for resident use. The Assistant Director of Nursing did not change their disposable gloves before moving to serve the next resident. This was observed multiple times until the Regional Director of Nursing was observed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey from 3/5/25 to 3/12/25, the facility did not ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for all residents. Specifically, 1) the facility did not provide documentation of screening, administration, or declination and education provided for 2 of 10 staff (Certified Nurse Aide #15 and Laundry Aide #16) reviewed for pneumococcal vaccination; 2) there was no evidence that a Water Management Plan was reviewed and updated, if needed, annually to prevent and control Legionella; and 3) a Licensed Practical Nurse was observed putting an unsanitized blood pressure cuff into the medication cart before properly cleaning it. The findings are: The facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccination Program for employees dated 10/24 documented control of pneumococcal disease is increasingly important due to high morbidity rates. The pneumococcal vaccine will be offered to all employees. During 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 · D2025-03-12 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 3/5/25 to 3/12/25, the facility did not ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for all residents. Specifically, the facility did not provide documentation of screening, administration or declination and education provided for 2 of 10 staff (Certified Nurse Aide #15 and Laundry Aide #16), reviewed for COVID-19 vaccinations. The findings are: The facility COVID-19 policy dated 10/30/24 documented the facility will ensure that all employees and contracted staff will be screened prior to offering the vaccination and prior to immunization, medical precautions and contraindications necessary for determining whether they are appropriate candidates for vaccination at any given time. Documentation will be maintained to reflect that the required education was provided and whether the resident and staff member received the vaccine. During the recertification survey, the facility was asked to…
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 before2019-01-25 · 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 conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure food was prepared, stored, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety to ensure prevention of foodborne illness. Specifically, 1. cooling logs were not completed for TCS (time and temperature controlled for safety) foods, 2. defrosting foods were not dated, 3. cooked TCS foods were not dated, 4. Unlabeled, undated, improperly wrapped, and/or expired foods were stored in two (2) refrigerated units; 5. TCS foods were not maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or less; and 6. thermometers used to monitor food temperatures were not calibrated. Danger Zone means temperatures above 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and below 135 degrees F that allow the rapid growth of pathogenic microorganisms that can cause foodborne illness. Potentially Hazardous Foods (PHF) or Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) Foods held in the danger zone for more than 4 hours (if being prepared from ingredients at ambient temperature) or 6 hours (if cooked and cooled) may cause…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-01-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that staff followed proper hand hygiene to prevent cross contamination and the spread of infection. Specifically, 1) hand hygiene was not observed during wound treatment for 1 of 4 residents (# 16). 2) for multiple residents # 34, # 72 and # 78 during a lunch meal observation on the first-floor unit. Additionally, hand hygiene was not observed following disposal of soiled items and prior to transporting a resident (#82) off the unit. The findings are: A lunch meal observation was conducted on 1/17/19 at 12:25 PM on the first-floor unit and the following was observed: The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA # 1) was observed delivering lunch meal trays to multiple residents in their rooms. CNA # 1 delivered a lunch meal tray to resident # 78. During the process, her ungloved hands contacted the resident's over bed table. Without performing hand hygiene, CNA # 1 exited the room and began to add additional liquids/beverages and other condiment items from a cart in 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.
“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
$12,948 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,948 — penalty dated 2025-03-12
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EATON MERCURIO, STEPHEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 50% | since 07/13/2022 |
| FARBENBLUM, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 50% | since 07/13/2022 |
| MAZUR, MICHAEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/13/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 70% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NY
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 335803. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-12, 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.