Lockport Rehab & Health Care Center
909 Lincoln Ave, Lockport, NY 14094 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 82 certified beds · (716) 434-6361 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2022
- 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
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 fell from 5 to 4 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 | 22.1% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 3.4% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.5% | 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 | 1.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 29.3% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.2% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.2% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.2% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 25.1% | 13.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 54.5% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.5% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.7% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.88 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.79 | 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.
51.8% 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 105 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.8% 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 43 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 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 71% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 51.8%CMS range 43.4–60.7 | 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 | 10.5%CMS range 7.7–15.1 | 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 | 62.8% | 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 | 53.5% | 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 | 67.4% | 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 | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 1.9% | 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 | 6.4%CMS range 3.0–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 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 82 beds and averages 78.2 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 4 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 3.74 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.51 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.34 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.98 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.62 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-11 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review conducted during a survey, the facility did make prompt efforts to resolve grievances for two (2) (Residents #5 and #6) of two (2) residents reviewed for missing property. Specifically, there was lack of follow-through and resolution for Resident #5 and Resident #6's reports of missing property. The findings are: The policy titled Resident Personal Property and Inventory, last reviewed on 08/04/2025 and approved by the Administrator 1/26 documented the facility shall maintain a system to inventory, label, and safeguard resident property to minimize the risk of loss, theft, or damage. In the event of lost property, a grievance form must be completed; the Administrator or designee will investigate the loss; if the facility is found to be responsible, the facility will replace the item or reimburse the resident for the fair market value. The policy titled Reporting and Investigation of Personal Property Lost or Damaged revised 01/26, documented the purpose was to assure that all…
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 · D2026-03-11 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a survey, the facility did not ensure residents were assessed for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation, risks and benefits of bed rails were reviewed with the resident or resident representative, and informed consent was obtained prior to the installation of bed rails for one (1) (Resident #87) of three (3) residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #87's bed rail was loose and not secure to the bedframe and the resident was not assessed for risk of entrapment from the bed rails. Additionally, the risks and benefits of bed rail use were not reviewed with the resident or their representative and consent was not obtained prior to bed rail use. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Bed Assist Devices revised 11/2024 documented bed assist devices are mobility devices used to aid in resident independence with bed mobility and/or to improve resident participation in bed mobility during care. Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy will assess resident's bed mobility skills and their ability…
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 · D2026-03-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the survey, the facility did not store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, one (1) (West Wing Unit) of two (2) unit nourishment refrigerators contained unlabeled, out of date food and drink items, and personal food was stored with residents' food. The finding is: The policy titled Dietary Sanitation revised 02/26, documented its purpose was to prevent the incidence of food borne illness through safe food handling procedures. Stored foods to be held or leftovers should not exceed a 72-hour period in refrigeration. Leftovers should be covered, labeled and dated, put in the freezer right away or if put in refrigerator, use within 72 hours (3 days) or discard. Juices, iced tea should be used within seven (7) days. All food items must be dated once they are opened. The policy and procedure titled Dietary Services revised 01/26, documented the facility stores, prepares, distributes and serves food…
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 · D2026-03-11 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolatedRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a survey, the facility did not ensure regular inspections of all bed frames, mattresses, and rails were conducted as part of a regular maintenance program to identify areas of possible entrapment (when a person is trapped in a hospital bed's rails, mattress or frame, preventing them from moving) for two (2) (Residents #1 and #71) of three (3) residents reviewed for side rail use. Specifically, Residents #1 and #71's bed rails were checked for possible zones of entrapment using a bed system measurement device that lacked a measurement component per the manufacturer's specifications. Additionally, the facility did not ensure Residents #1 and #71's bed rails, which were used and purchased separately from the bed frames, were compatible. The findings are:The policy titled Bed Assist Devices, revised 11/2024, documented the Maintenance Department, OT (Occupational Therapy) Department or Housekeeping will be involved in the placement and removal of the bed assist devices. Along with performing an Entrapment Gap Tool Test…
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 · D2024-06-04 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the Standard survey completed on 6/4/24 the facility did not ensure residents had the right to choose activities, schedules, and health care consistent with their interests, assessments, and plan of care for one (Resident #9) of two residents reviewed for choices. Specifically, Resident #9 was provided with a shower once a week in the evening instead of twice a week during the day as care planned and preferred. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Resident Rights reviewed 5/24 documented each resident was ensured the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. The policy and procedure titled Quality of Life dated 4/92 documented the resident has the right to choose activities, schedules, and health care consistent with their interests, assessments and plans of care and the right to make choices about aspects of their life in the facility…
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 · D2024-06-04 · 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, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 6/4/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for one (Resident #29) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #29 had long thick jagged fingernails with dark brown debris underneath on their left contracted (loss of joint mobility) hand, and long jagged fingernails with chipped polish and dark brown debris underneath on their right hand. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Nail Care dated 2/23, documented the facility will provide appropriate nail care to all residents. Nails would be observed daily by staff providing direct AM care, would be trimmed weekly on bath day, and residents with special needs (diabetic and residents on blood thinners) will have nails trimmed by the nurse weekly. 1. Resident #29 had diagnoses including vascular dementia, obstructive hydrocephalus (excessive accumulation of cerebral spinal fluid on 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 · D2024-06-04 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00323467) during the Standard survey completed on 6/4/24, the facility did not ensure that a resident who was fed by enteral means (method of feeding that uses the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to deliver part or all a person's caloric requirements) received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent possible complications for one (Resident #127) of one resident reviewed for feeding tubes. Specifically, the facility did not provide the tube feed formula as per the hospital discharge summary. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Enteral Feeding/Gastrostomy (a tube that passes through the abdominal wall into the stomach) - Jtube (jejunostomy tube- a tube placed through the abdominal wall into the small intestine)- Nasogastric Tube (tube inserted through the nose into the stomach) - Duodenal Feeding Tube (a tube inserted into the small intestine) reviewed 05/23 documented the purpose was to provide adequate…
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 · D2022-06-28 · 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 completed during a Standard survey conducted from 6/22/22 through 6/28/22, the facility did not inform the resident's representative of a need to alter treatment significantly for one (Resident #55) of one resident reviewed for notification of change. Specifically, Resident #55 was placed on an antipsychotic medication (Zyprexa) for aggression related to dementia and the responsible party was not notified prior to initiation of the medication. The finding is: The policy and procedure (P/P) titled Notification of Change in Resident Condition/ Status revised date 3/22 documented the facility will assure that communication with Resident's responsible family member and physician is made in the event of a change in condition and/or status. The Resident's responsible family member will be notified if the resident's physical, communicative, psychosocial and/or functional status changes unexpectedly or substantially. The resident's plan of care must be altered significantly. 1. Resident #55 had diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbance,…
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 · D2022-06-28 · 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 completed during a Standard survey started 6/22/22 and completed 6/28/22, the facility did not ensure the resident's rights to be free from abuse for one (Resident #55) of two residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, Resident #55 was bitten on the left (L) hand sustaining a skin tear measuring 3 x 3.5 by Resident #75 who has a history (hx) of physical aggression towards other residents and staff. The findings are: The policy and procedure (P/P) titled Abuse Prevention with revision date 8/21 documented it is the policy of the facility to implement and maintain an abuse prevention program. Physical abuse defined as striking, pinching, kicking, shoving, bumping or unwanted sexual attention. The purpose is to prevent incidents of abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, and misappropriation of property for all residents. The P/P titled Resident to Resident dated 3/22 documented the staff will identify potentially harmful situations and create a plan of care which…
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 · D2022-06-28 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review completed during a Standard survey started 6/22/22 and completed 6/28/22, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations including abuse are reported immediately, but not later than 2-hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, to the appropriate officials (including the State Survey Agency). Specifically, two (Residents #55 and 75) of two residents reviewed for abuse were involved in a resident-to-resident altercation which was not reported timely to the New York State (NYS) Department of Health (DOH) as required. The finding is: The policy and procedure (P/P) titled Abuse Prevention with revision date 8/21 documented it is the policy of the facility to implement and maintain an abuse prevention program. Physical abuse defined as striking, pinching, kicking, shoving, bumping or unwanted sexual attention. The purpose is to prevent incidents of abuse, neglect, involuntary seclusion, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-06-28 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the standard Survey started 6/22/22 and completed 6/28/22, the facility did not ensure a resident with an indwelling catheter received the necessary services and treatment for catheter use for one (Resident #44) of one resident reviewed. Specifically, Resident #44's indwelling urinary catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) was not anchored to prevent excessive tension on the catheter. Additionally, the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) did not address anchoring of the catheter. The finding is: Review of the facility P&P titled Urinary Catheterization dated 10/18, revealed there was no documentation that a resident's urinary catheter was to be anchored to prevent tension on the catheter. 1. Resident #44 had diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (chronic disease affecting the brain and spinal cord) and neurogenic bladder (bladder with diminished sensation). The Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment tool) dated 4/23/22 documented Resident #44 was cognitively intact and had an indwelling urinary…
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 · C2026-03-11 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 3/11/2026, the facility did not ensure that posted nurse staffing information contained the required information on a daily basis. Specifically, the actual hours that licensed nurses and Certified Nurse Aides worked and the resident census were not included in the posted staffing information. The finding is:The policy titled Daily Posting of Staffing Information and Resident Census dated 01/2026 documented that the facility will post daily staffing information and resident census. It documented that the 11:00 PM-7:00 AM shift will initiate the daily staffing report, include the schedule of all Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, and Certified Nurse Aides who are scheduled to work the day of the report, the total hours of each category will be included, at the beginning of each shift the Nursing Supervisor or designee will update report and add current resident census.An observation of the Daily Staffing Report at the reception desk on 03/10/2026 at 10:00 AM, revealed 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.
- 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 MAXIMUS HEALTHCARE GROUP — 7 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 | 4 of 5 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAXIMUS LOCKPORT HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/25/2015 |
| MINZER, NAFTALI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/25/2015 |
| WEITMAN, YAAKOV | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/25/2015 |
| HIRSCH, NISSON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/25/2015 |
| SNYDER, AARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/06/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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.
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 335573. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-11, 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.