Iroquois Nursing Home INC
4600 Southwood Heights Drive, Jamesville, NY 13078 · Non profit - Corporation · 160 certified beds · (315) 469-1300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 17.4% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 12.6% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.7% | 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 | 2.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.0% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.2% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.4% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.2% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.1% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.6% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.4% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.9% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.61 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.28 | 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.
58.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 504 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 74.3% 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 237 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 0.59 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 88% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 58.5%CMS range 53.6–63.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.5%CMS range 11.1–16.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 74.3% | 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 | 64.1% | 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 | 74.7% | 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 | 98.2% | 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 | 97.6% | 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 | 1.1% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 4.7%CMS range 3.2–7.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 160 beds and averages 156.8 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.05 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 2.81 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.63 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-02 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews (iQIES intake 2971099) the facility failed to ensure that residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorders, intellectual disabilities, or related conditions were referred for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (ensures that individuals who have a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities were not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care; a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review identifies the specialized services required by the resident) for one (1) of one (1) residents (Resident #140) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #140 had a known developmental disability not identified on their initial Screen, a new screen was not completed, they were not referred for a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Level II timely when the resident's discharge plan changed to long term care; and they did not have a care plan reflecting their Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review determination following the completion of a Level II assessment. Findings include:The New York…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-30 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews during the abbreviated survey (#2649782) conducted 01/30/2026, the facility did not ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #2). Specifically, Resident #2 was administered an as needed antipsychotic medication for agitation without a documented medical rationale. There was no documented evidence that the medication was medically necessary, nor that non-pharmacological interventions were attempted prior to administering the medication. Additionally, the resident did not have a care plan to address their behaviors or personalized interventions for their behaviors.Findings include:The undated facility policy, Psychotropic Medication Use, documented a psychotropic drug was any medication that affected brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior which included anti-psychotics. The facility would not use psychotropic medications to address behaviors without first determining if there was a medical, physical, functional, psychological, social or environmental…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-20 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/14/2024 -8/20/2024, the facility did not ensure a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 of 4 resident floors (Unit 1) reviewed. Specifically, Unit 1 had multiple unclean and damaged wheelchairs, positioning chairs, and positioning devices. Findings include: The facility policy, Devices and Equipment, dated 3/2028 documented all resident devices and equipment, to include wheelchairs and walkers, would be maintained on a schedule. Defective or worn devices would be repaired or replaced. The undated facility policy, Work Orders, documented all staff were responsible for submitting work orders in the electronic system and then it was to be forwarded to the maintenance director. The Director of Maintenance was responsible to ensure the work was completed in a timely manner. The following observations were made: - on 8/14/2024 at 10:06 AM, Resident #10 was sitting in a positioning chair in their room. The chair's arm rests were unclean, and the material on the right back…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 8/14/2024 - 8/20/2024, the facility did not ensure indicated restraints were used for the least amount of time and documented ongoing re-evaluation of the need for restraints for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #7) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #7 had an order for a Merry [NAME] (an enclosed frame wheeled walker) that was evaluated as a restraint and the Comprehensive Care Plan did not address parameters of use for the Merry Walker; and the restraint assessment was incomplete. Findings include: The facility policy, Restraint Policy, revised 2/2021 documented all residents who required the use of a restraint would have a care plan developed. All care plans would be updated quarterly at a minimum. All restraints were to be released at least every 2 hours to allow the resident to exercise and change position. A specific physicians' order was to be entered in the residents' medical record which identified the medical symptom related to the restraint, type of restraint and parameters of use. It…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00318948 and NY00314795) surveys conducted 8/14/2024-8/20/2024, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #36) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #36 was not assisted with timely toileting. Findings include: The undated facility policy, Certified Nurse Aide Activities of Daily Living, documented the certified nurse aide who completed the resident care was responsible for documenting the level of care the resident received that shift. The undated facility policy, Toileting Schedule, documented an incontinent resident would be placed on a toileting schedule. The resident was to be toileted a minimum of 5 times within a 24-hour period and must be documented. A sign was hung on the resident's bathroom door to serve as a reminder. The resident who required supervision for bowel function was to be taken to the toilet every 2 hours as part 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 · D2024-08-20 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/14/2024 -8/20/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident with limited mobility received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #22) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #22 was not evaluated by therapy or care planned for the use of a scoot chair (a low-to-the-ground positioning chair that allows self-propulsion by foot and reduces the risk of falls). Findings include: The facility policy, Devices and Equipment, dated 3/2018 documented recommendations for devices, which included wheelchairs, were to be documented in the residents' plans of care. Nursing would request therapy services to evaluate a device that was not properly fitting. The undated facility policy, Comprehensive Care Planning, documented the interdisciplinary team would review the care plan with a significant change and as needed. The care plan would be individualized for each resident. Changes that resulted in a different approach must be documented in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/14/2024 - 8/20/2024, the facility did not ensure that residents who required dialysis services received such services consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #301) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #301 received hemodialysis (a process of purifying blood when the kidneys do not work properly) treatments at a community-based dialysis center and did not have a Comprehensive Care Plan that addressed dialysis. Findings include: The undated facility policy, Dialysis, documented the purpose of the policy was to provide proper care for residents receiving dialysis at an external facility. General guidelines included nursing staff observing the resident after returning from each dialysis treatment for their tolerance of the procedure, meals taken, dressing condition, and any other pertinent information as indicated, and to notify the registered nurse of any abnormal findings. Any bleeding from external catheters and fistulas/grafts indicated a medical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-11 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 interview and record review during the abbreviated survey (NY00306465), the facility did not ensure a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #2's order for continuous positive airway pressure therapy (a treatment that uses pressure to keep the airway open when sleeping) was not complete and when Resident #2 either refused the treatment or the machine had a missing part, there was no documentation the facility addressed the issues or that the medical provider was notified. Findings include: The 2019 Oxygen Therapy policy documented continuous positive airway pressure therapy was used for residents with sleep apnea (condition where the person stops breathing when sleeping) and a physician order was required for use of the machine. The procedures included: - residents may have personal machines or the facility rents 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 · D2022-07-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00298995) surveys conducted 7/12/22-7/15/22, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #31) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #31 was found in a non-resident area of the facility 2 hours after a fire drill when the resident left a secured unit undetected. Additionally, the resident's absence was reported by a family member and unnoticed by staff. Findings include: The facility policy Fire Procedures revised 6/2018, documented for alarms including Secured Unit, keep/move residents to the Resident Dining/Activity Room. Following the evacuation, the charge nurse would verify that all residents/staff were accounted for, and report results to Control Station. The Nursing Director/Supervisor was responsible to verify that each unit/department had accounted for all residents/staff and report results to Command Station.…
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 before2022-07-15 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00252303) surveys conducted 7/12/22-7/15/22, the facility failed to provide food and drinks that were palatable, attractive, and at safe and appetizing temperatures for 2 of 2 test trays (lunch trays for Residents #20 and #25). Specifically, food was not served at palatable or safe temperatures. The food service policy Critical Control Daily Temperature Log revised 2009, documented the minimal internal temperatures for cooking raw food were 165 degrees Fahrenheit (F) for poultry, 155 degrees F for ground meats (beef, pork, veal, lamb, and fish), pork (steak & chops), 155 degrees F for pork roasts, and 145 degrees F for beef, veal, and lamb roasts. The policy documented serving temperatures were to be: - under 40 degrees F for cold foods; - soups 160-180 degrees F; - meats, poultry, seafood, and eggs 145-165 degrees F; and - sauces, gravies, and vegetables 160-180 degrees F. Resident #20 had diagnoses including acute…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-15 · 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, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 7/12/22-7/15/22, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen (main kitchen) reviewed. Specifically, the side of the deep fryer was soiled/unclean, the steam kettle had splattered deep fryer oil, the floor of the walk-in cooler had frozen water and melted water on it, the handwash sink near the 3-bay sink area was leaking, there were two soiled/unclean frying pans, and the walls behind the dish machine and the 3-bay sink area were soiled/unclean. Findings include: There was no documented policy or procedure for kitchen cleaning and maintenance. The following observations were made in the kitchen: - on 7/13/22 at 11:25 AM, the side of the deep fryer was soiled/unclean with food particles/debris. The back section of the steam kettle next to the deep fryer had deep fryer oil residue on it. - on 7/13/22 at 11:45 AM, the walk-in cooler had frozen water/ice along the bottom of the wall…
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 before2020-02-06 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey the facility did not provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 2 of 3 meal trays (Unit 1 breakfast tray and a dinner tray for Resident #33) tested. Specifically, food was not served at palatable and safe temperatures. Findings include: The 1/2019 Meal Temperature Record facility policy documented all food and drink should be palatable, attractive and served at a safe and appetizing temperature as determined by the type of food to ensure resident's satisfaction. Hot food should be held for service at 140 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or higher. The policy did not document at what temperature cold food was to be held for service. Resident #33 had a diagnosis of depression. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had intact cognition. The 11/2019 physician order documented the resident was on a regular diet. During the 2/3/20 Resident Council…
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 · D2020-02-06 · 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 during the recertification survey the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the spread of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #26) reviewed for pressure injury. Specifically, a nurse did not perform hand hygiene between donning and doffing of gloves during a wound care dressing treatment. Findings include: The undated Aseptic Dressing Change policy documented the steps to a clean/aseptic dressing change technique should include the following: - Perform hand hygiene. - [NAME] gloves. - Remove old dressing/discard - Remove gloves/discard. - Perform hand hygiene. - Put on gloves. - Cleanse the wound. - Remove gloves, perform hand hygiene. - Apply clean gloves. Resident #26 was admitted with diagnoses of a Stage 2 (partial thickness skin loss) pressure ulcer of coccyx (tailbone) and cellulitis (skin infection) of left lower limb. The 5/21/19 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-08-20 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 8/14/2024-8/20/2024, the facility did not ensure nurse staffing information was posted daily at the beginning of each shift and included the total number and actual hours worked by registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and certified nurse aides for 4 of 5 days of survey. Specifically, daily nurse staffing was not posted daily at the beginning of the shift as required on 8/14/2024, 8/15/2024, 8/16/2024, and 8/19/2024 as required. Findings include: The facility did not have a policy on posting daily nurse staffing. The following observations were made in the main lobby: - on 8/14/2024 at 9:40 AM and 4:35 PM, the daily nurse staffing was posted in a clear plastic frame on a shelf and was dated 8/13/2024 with the day shift (7:00 AM - 3:00 PM) nurse staffing only. - on 8/15/2024 at 4:40 PM the posted daily nurse staffing was dated 8/13/2024. - on 8/16/2024 at 9:01 AM the daily nurse staffing posted was dated 8/13/2024. At 10:07 AM, the posted daily nurse staffing was dated 8/16/2024 and documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BONNER, SARAH | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 04/16/2012 |
| ALLARD, MELISSA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2015 |
| ANDERSON, ANITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2004 |
| BERGEMANN, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2009 |
| DRAPOLA, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2013 |
| HARRIS, KELLI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2014 |
| INFANTI, STEVE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2016 |
| LEBOWITZ, MICKEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2012 |
| MOSHIER, SONYA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/17/2008 |
| MURPHY, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2013 |
| HEFFERON, PENNY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2012 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $414K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335764. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-20, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.