Schuyler Hospital Inc and Long Term Care Unit

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

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.

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.

38.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 58.9% 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 56 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 22% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 116.6 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.32 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.61 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.69 is at or above 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 3.53 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.64 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · E2024-03-28 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — pattern
  Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
  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 the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for two of seven newly hired employees the facility did not implement written policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property related to screening prospective employees. Specifically, a nurse aide registry abuse screening was not completed for newly hired employees prior to starting work. The findings are: A review of the [NAME] Hospital Policy & Procedure for Resident Abuse, effective date February 1992 and last revised August 2017, included screening procedures that all staff will have a verification completed prior to hire through the New York State Nurse Aide Registry Verification (Prometric Report). On 3/26/24 beginning at 1:05 PM, seven newly hired employee files were reviewed and included the following: A Resident Assistant was hired on 2/19/24 and a nurse aide registry screen for prior abuse findings was not submitted until 3/26/24. A Dietary…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-03-28 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — pattern
  Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, for five (Resident #15, #23, #48, #59 & #64) of five residents reviewed the facility did not ensure that the influenza and/or pneumococcal immunizations were offered and provided if appropriate or that education was provided to the residents or the resident representative if appropriate. Specifically, there was no documented evidence that Resident #64 (who was eligible) or their representative had been offered, provided, declined, and/or educated on the pneumococcal immunization or had received it prior to admission. For Residents #15, #23, #48 and #59, there was no documented evidence that the residents had been offered, received, had declined and/or been educated on the influenza immunization for this year's flu season. The evidence includes but is not limited to the following: The facility policy Pneumococcal Vaccine - Resident, dated 1/14/22 documented: on admission, staff will attempt to verify if pneumococcal vaccine status…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-28 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey for two (Residents #5 and #59) of four residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure the residents were treated with respect and dignity and care for the resident in a manner and environment that promotes enhancement of their quality of life. Specifically, staff did not provide the resident privacy during the medication administration of injections. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #59 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included diabetes, obesity, and lymphedema (tissue swelling in the arms or legs). The Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #59 was moderately impaired cognitively and received daily insulin injections. Review of the resident's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed that Resident #59 was dependent on staff for locomotion in their wheelchair while on the unit. During an observation on 3/26/24 at 12:15 PM, Resident #59 was sitting in their wheelchair…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey for one (Resident #27) of two residents reviewed for positioning and mobility, the facility did not ensure that the resident's person-centered care plan was implemented to ensure the resident's goals and outcomes were met. Specifically, Resident #27 was not provided a hand roll to their left-hand contracture (permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons and skin causing a decrease in range of motion and often painful) on multiple observations per physician orders, therapy recommendations and the resident's care plan. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #27 had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, and contractures. The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 1/5/24, included that the resident had severely impaired cognition, was totally dependent on staff for care and had limitations in range of motion to both upper extremities (including both hands) that interfered with daily functions. Review of current…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-03-28 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
  Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey, for one (Resident #5) of one resident reviewed for insulin administration, the facility did not ensure that the services and care provided met professional standards of quality. Specifically, several nurses did not clarify a contradictory physician order regarding insulin injections, when to give and when not to give as it relates to Resident #5's meal intakes. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy, Medication Administration - General Guidelines, dated January 2018, included that medications were to be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician. Additionally, if a medication order was not clear, or questionable in any way, the nurse should contact the provider for clarification. Resident #5 had diagnoses that included diabetes, dementia, and gastritis (inflammation of lining of the stomach). Review of the Minimum Data Set Resident assessment dated [DATE] revealed…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-28 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey, for one (Resident #50) of five residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that a resident who is unable to carry out Activities of Daily Living received the necessary services to maintain good oral hygiene. Specifically, Resident #50 who is dependent on staff for assistance with oral hygiene was observed on several occasions with poor oral hygiene. Additionally, interviews with staff revealed that oral hygiene had not been completed despite documentation that it had been. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #50 had diagnoses including traumatic brain injury (injury to the brain caused by an external force), left sided hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body), and seizure disorder (temporary disruption of normal brain function caused by abnormal electrical discharges in the brain). The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 12/15/23, revealed Resident #50 had severely impaired cognition, had…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-12-17 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, completed on 12/17/21, it was determined that for one (Resident #21) of two residents reviewed, the facility did not provide the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene. The issue involved lack of nail care. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #21 had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, dementia without behavioral disturbance, and anxiety disorder. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 10/14/21, documented that the resident had moderately impaired cognition and required extensive assistance for personal hygiene. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan dated 10/21/21, and the current Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) [NAME] (used by the CNA to drive daily care) revealed that Resident #21 required extensive assistance of staff for personal hygiene. During an observation on 12/13/21 at 10:46 a.m., Resident #21's fingernails had dark colored debris under all of the nail beds of both hands. During an…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2019-05-17 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one (Resident #111) of four residents reviewed for accidents, the facility did not thoroughly investigate an injury to rule out abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Specifically, the facility did not thoroughly or timely investigate an incident involving injury following a transfer. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #111 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses including a stroke, left sided hemiplegia (paralysis), and depression. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 5/1/19, revealed the resident was cognitively intact, required extensive assist of two staff members for transfers, and had no behaviors. The Comprehensive Care Plan, initiated 5/13/19, and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) [NAME] revealed that the resident required the assistance of two staff members with a gait belt for toileting and transfers. On 12/17/19 it was added that the resident required a left ankle…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-05-17 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
  Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living, the facility did not provide the necessary care and services to maintain personal hygiene. Specifically, Resident #15 did not receive the necessary assistance or support to maintain good oral hygiene. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has diagnoses including dementia with behavioral disturbance, Gastro-Intestinal Reflux Disease (GERD), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 2/20/19, revealed the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required extensive assistance of one staff member for personal hygiene, and rejected care on one to three days during the look back period. Review of a dental note, dated 7/26/18, revealed the resident had gingival inflammation (inflammation of the gums surrounding the teeth), hyperplasia (gums…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2019-05-17 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for two (Residents #6 and #89) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility did not identify and provide care and services to address residents' skin care/wound care needs in accordance with professional standards of practice based on the comprehensive assessment, person centered care plan, and resident's choice. Specifically, wound care was not thoroughly identified, assessed, and/or treated according to physician orders and/or wound clinic recommendations. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including colon cancer with liver metastasis, a knee fracture status post-surgical repair, surgical removal of hardware on 4/24/19, and multiple Stage III pressure ulcers. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/7/19, revealed that the resident had moderately impaired cognition, was understood and was able 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 26 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 organizational owners 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.

What families pay in NY