Elderwood At Lancaster
1818 Como Park Blvd, Lancaster, NY 14086 · For profit - Corporation · 96 certified beds · (716) 683-6165 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Dec 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (77%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 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 held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 12.3% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.5% | 19.5% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.1% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.9% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.2% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.9% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.0% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.6% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 50.2% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.8% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.5% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
§ 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.
52.8% 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 120 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 69.2% 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 52 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 0.58 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 52.8%CMS range 44.4–58.9 | 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 | 10.2%CMS range 6.7–15.8 | 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 | 69.2% | 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 | 44.2% | 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 | 71.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 98.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.0% | 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 | 7.6%CMS range 4.2–13.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.67 | 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 96 beds and averages 86.5 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.76 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.56 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 2.51 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.86 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.86 to 0.79 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 77% is well above 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.
16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-23 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 Abbreviated Survey (2615979), the facility did not ensure the resident's right to be free from verbal abuse for one (1) (Resident #1) of three (3) residents reviewed. Specifically, based on audio recording and facility surveillance footage, a maintenance staff member was verbally abusive to Resident #1. The finding is:The policy titled Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation, Protection and Reporting dated 4/30/24 documented the facility will provide protection for the health, welfare and rights of each resident residing in the facility. The facility Administrator and the interdisciplinary team will identify, correct, and intervene in situations in which abuse, mistreatment, neglect, exploitation, and or misappropriation of resident property is more likely to occur by ensuring supervision of staff on all shifts occur to identify inappropriate staff behaviors, such as using derogatory language.The undated New York State Department 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 · D2025-12-23 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and record review conducted during an Abbreviated survey (2615979) the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse are reported immediately but not later than 2-hours after the allegation is made if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse, to the Administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency) for one (1) (Residents #1) of three (3) residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, an allegation of staff to resident verbal and physical abuse was not reported to the New York State Department of Health within the required (2) two-hour timeframe. The finding is: Refer to F 600 Freedom from Abuse and Neglect, scope and severity D The policy titled Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation, Protection and Reporting dated 04/30/2024 documented the facility Administrator or designee will report all alleged violations of abuse to state agencies immediately, but no later than (2) two hours after the allegation of abuse, mistreatment; and as required to all other required agencies (e.g., law…
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 · F2024-11-22 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00360394, NY00317661) during the Standard survey completed on 11/22/24, the facility did not ensure that there was sufficient nursing staff on a 24-hour basis to provide care to all residents. Specifically, one of one facility reviewed for sufficient staffing the facility did not meet their assessed minimum staffing levels for Certified Nurse Aides to meet the needs of each resident. The findings are: Refer to F 677 Activities of daily living care for dependent residents. The undated policy and procedure titled Emergency Staffing Plan documented in the event of extreme staffing available internal float pool and 3rd party agency nursing staff and Certified Nurse Aides will be utilized. The administrator and/or designee will reach out to other facilities to try and secure available staff to assist. All department managers/supervisors and all other available staff will be available for any non-nursing duties assigned…
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 · F2024-11-22 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 11/22/24, the facility did not ensure the Director of Nursing served as a charge nurse/Supervisor, only when the facility has an average daily occupancy of 60 or fewer residents. Specifically, the Director of Nursing worked as a charge nurse when the facility had a daily average census of greater than 60. The finding is: Review of a facility provided document titled Director of Nursing, last revised 2/2024, revealed the Director of Nursing ensures the health and well-being of our residents by being responsible for oversight and operations of the nursing department and its staff including staffing, training, and development, and management of personnel. The Director of Nursing is responsible for upholding and following state, local, and federal regulations, and best practices within their scope of practice. Additionally, the Director of Nursing, in conjunction with the scheduler, monitors the master staffing plan for the department and approves the schedule. The State Operational Manual…
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 · F2024-11-22 · tag F0840 — widespreadEmploy or obtain outside professional resources to provide services in the nursing home when the facility does not employ a qualified professional to furnish a required service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review during the Standard survey completed on 11/22/24, the facility did not employ a qualified professional to furnish a specific service to be provided by the facility and the facility did not have that service furnished to residents by a person or agency outside the facility under an arrangement. Specifically, the facility did not have a dentist on their staff and did not have dental services provided by an outside person or agency under an arrangement. This involved Resident #23 and has the potential to affect 83 of 83 residents. The finding is: The facility document titled Dental Care Requirements, dated 9/18, documented the dentist (or designee) must complete an oral exam within fourteen days of admission and document dental status in the medical record. Whenever a resident requires assessment/ treatment related to routine care or provision of complete and partial dentures, the cleaning, repair and restoration of dentures/ teeth, surgery and periodontal therapy, the dentist (or designee) must visit the resident and document the care and treatment…
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 · D2024-11-22 · 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 interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 11/22/24, the facility did not ensure the resident has the right to exercise his or her rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen of the United States. Specifically, two (Residents #19 and #49) of two reviewed for voting was not afforded the right to vote in the November 2024 Presidential Election. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Voting Arrangements dated 7/13/2018 documented the Director of Activities, in cooperation with the Director of Social Services and the Board of Elections, will ensure that residents (who are registered and wish to participate) will have the opportunity to vote on the premises in local, county, state, and federal primaries and elections. The Director of Activities or designee assists the Director of Social Services in arranging for facility space for voting, notifying registered residents of the opportunity to vote, and encouraging residents to take advantage of this…
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 · D2024-11-22 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 11/22/24, the facility did not ensure a resident was assessed by the interdisciplinary team to determine a resident's ability to safely administer their own medications if clinically appropriate for one (Resident #11) of one resident reviewed. Specifically, Resident #11 was observed with medications in their room and has stated they self-administered those medications without being evaluated as to whether they could safely do so. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Self Administration of Medications, last revised 04/10/18, documented residents who desire to self-administer medication are permitted to do so upon review and approval by the inter-disciplinary care planning team members and with an order from the attending physician. Legend or over the counter medication will be stored in a locked drawer in the resident's room. The use of self-administered medication will be monitored by the licensed nursing staff. Each appropriate resident is offered the opportunity 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 · D2024-11-22 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during the Recertification survey completed on 11/22/24, the facility did not ensure the resident's representative was notified immediately when the residents mental and psychological condition changed requiring a change in treatment. Specifically, for one (Resident #71) of one resident reviewed the facility did not notify Resident #71's responsible when there was need to alter their treatment and a new psychotropic medication was initiated. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Notification of Resident Changes dated 5/31/18 documented the facility will immediately notify the resident's legal representative when there is: a need to alter treatment significantly (a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment). Resident #71 had diagnoses that included dementia with other behavioral disturbances, Wernicke's encephalopathy (degenerative brain disorder) and repeated falls. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 10/2/24 documented Resident #71…
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 · D2024-11-22 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review during the Standard survey completed on 11/22/24, the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The issues included an active roof leak, foul odors in a shower room, and a shower chair with sharp edges from a broken footrest. Additionally, oxygen concentrator filters were dust-laden and were not cleaned according to manufacturer's recommendations. This affected one (Unit 2) of two resident units. The findings are: 1. The policy and procedure titled Working Surfaces and Fall Prevention Protection, dated 5/8/18, documented all operations must be performed in a manner which will prevent any undesirable effects to our employees, assets, the community, and the environment. Observation on Unit 2 on 11/21/24 at 9:00 AM revealed the following areas that appeared to have wet ceiling tiles: one ceiling tile in the corridor between Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and #219, two…
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 · D2024-11-22 · 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 observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 11/22/24, the facility did not ensure that residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for two (Resident #16 and #79) of four residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #16 was not provided with timely incontinence care and Resident #79 had long dirty fingernails. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Hygiene and Grooming dated 2/7/24 documented that designated nursing staff will ensure that residents are cleaned and appropriately groomed at all times. Residents will be provided with care to maintain or improve abilities to perform hygiene and grooming tasks, as needed. The day shift morning (AM) and daily care is given to all residents in preparation for breakfast and the daily routine. Morning care includes oral hygiene; a partial bath; perineal care (as necessary/ordered) and any specific hygiene care…
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.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-22 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted the Standard survey completed on 11/22/24, the facility did not ensure that drugs and biologicals were securely stored in accordance with State and Federal laws for one (Unit 2) of two units reviewed for medication storage. Specifically, medications were signed as administered and left unattended at Resident #66's bedside. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Medications Administration Methods dated 1/25/24 documented a Licensed Nurse will be responsible for passing medications according to techniques and procedures that meet current practice standards in compliance with State Codes, Rules, and Regulations and other applicable state and federal laws. A medication must never be left at bedside or be out of sight of the nurse administering the medication. The nurse must watch each resident take the medication, and ensure the medication is swallowed, unless the resident has an order for self-administration of medications. Medication administration is recorded on the Medication Administration Record after…
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 · D2024-11-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed 11/22/24, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and a comfortable environment, to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (Residents #2, #11) of two residents reviewed. Specifically, staff did not maintain proper infection control measures after completing foley catheter (tube inserted into bladder to drain urine) care prior to touching high contact areas, and the resident's catheter tubing was observed directly on the floor (#2); staff did not wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for residents on enhanced barrier precautions while providing care (#2); and there was a lack of signage to alert staff that Resident #11 required enhanced barrier precautions. Additionally, the facility's written processes did not include the staffs practice of a blue diamond identification system…
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 · D2024-10-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review during an Abbreviated survey (Complaint # NY00323906) completed on 10/18/24, the facility did not ensure that the resident's person-centered care plan was implemented to meet the resident's medical and nursing needs for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for care plan implementation. Specifically, the resident was not provided with posey boots (therapeutic footwear that help prevent and treat heel ulcers) at all times as ordered and care planned. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Pressure Ulcer, Pressure Injury and Other Skin Conditions: Initial Assessment, Care Planning, Ongoing Evaluation and Management last modified 2/27/2023, documented residents with pressure ulcers, injuries or skin conditions will receive evaluation, treatment, and services to promote healing and prevent new conditions from developing. Pressure Ulcer, Pressure Injuries and Other Skin Condition Care Plan Guidelines documented additional considerations will be made…
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 · D2022-12-06 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed 11/20/22 through 12/6/22, the facility did not ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services for one (Resident #50) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, there was a three-day delay in the initiation of a treatment for a newly identified unstageable (not stageable due the coverage of wound bed by slough (soft, moist, dead tissue that may be white, tan, yellow or green), and/or eschar (black or brown dead tissue)) pressure ulcer. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Skin Conditions, Wounds and Pressure Ulcers (Assessment and Monitoring Program) dated 3/12/20 documented identified skin conditions and/or wounds will be assessed and documented by a registered nurse (RN) in the medical record. The facility Skin Product Clinical Guide - Updated 2/19/20 documented the treatment for an unstageable pressure injury with slough or eschar was the use of an enzymatic debridement product covered by a dry clean dressing or…
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 · D2019-12-20 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during the Standard Survey completed on 12/20/19, the facility did not ensure the Pharmacist reported irregularities to the attending physician and the facilities Medical Director and Director of Nursing (DON) for one (Resident #8) of five resident's residents reviewed for drug regimen reviews. Specifically, the lack of Consultant Pharmacist's identification and recommendation regarding the continued use of Wellbutrin (antidepressant medication) without attempt of a gradual dose reduction (GDR). The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Medication Regimen Review by Pharmacy Consultant dated 8/2019 documented the pharmacy consultant will assess the medication regimen for appropriateness and rationality to determine if the medication therapy is optimally effective and to identify any irregularities or unnecessary drugs. Irregularities include but are not limited to: excessive dose, excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for its use, and adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ddisputed · IDR2019-12-20 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 12/20/19 the facility did not ensure that residents who use psychotropic drugs receive gradual dose reductions (GDR), and behavioral interventions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue these drugs. One (Resident #8) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication had issues. Specifically, the lack of documented specific behaviors that led to a failed GDR attempt of Fluphenazine HCL (antipsychotic medication) and lack of care plan revisions during that GDR attempt. In addition, the lack of a GDR attempt of an anti-depressant (Bupropion). The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Psychotropic Drugs dated 4/3/18 documented the policy was to ensure those residents prescribed psychotropic drugs will receive only those medications, in doses and for the duration clinically indicated to treat the resident's assessed conditions; have non-pharmacological interventions (such as behavioral interventions) considered and used when indicated, instead of, or…
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.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ELDERWOOD — 17 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
The other 16 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COLE, WARREN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 50% | since 10/14/2011 |
| RUBIN, JEFFREY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 50% | since 10/14/2011 |
| HAUSER, ANGELA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 06/07/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 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.
This home reported $2.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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 335577. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-22, 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.