Elderwood at Wheatfield
2600 Niagara Falls Boulevard, Niagara Falls, NY 14304 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 123 certified beds · (716) 215-8000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (59%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 24% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 25.2% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.3% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.1% | 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 | 11.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.6% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.6% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.4% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 13.8% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 37.8% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.0% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.2% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 12.1% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.8% | 9.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.93 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.37 | 1.36 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
53.3% 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 155 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.8% 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 73 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 0.57 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 14% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 53.3%CMS range 46.7–61.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 8.3–15.6 | 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 | 65.8% | 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 | 60.3% | 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 | 52.0% | 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 | 98.8% | 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 | 78.2% | 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 | 2.4% | 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 | 8.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.8%CMS range 3.0–8.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 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 123 beds and averages 115.6 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 7 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 2.95 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.49 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 2.40 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.17 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 59% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2024-08-14 · 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 complaint investigations (NY00344374, NY00348550, and NY00347789) conducted during the Standard survey completed on 8/14/24, the facility did not ensure sufficient nursing staff to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for one of one facility. Specifically, the facility did not meet their established minimum number of staff for each shift. Additionally, there was a lack of sufficient nursing staff to get residents out of bed and provide appropriate care according to residents' care plans and preferences. Resident #'s 1, 13, 15, 32, 55, 56, 76, 82, 86, 89 and 91 were involved. The findings are: Refer to F561 Resident Choices, scope and severity = D 1. The Facility assessment dated [DATE], documented the facility's bed capacity was 123 and their average daily census at the time of the assessment was 107. The facility assessment documented the minimum number of staff required 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 · E2024-08-14 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
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 8/14/24, the facility did not maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free from insects for one (Unit 1) of three resident units. Specifically, flies were observed in resident rooms, dining rooms and common (lounge) area on Unit 1. The findings are: Refer to F 584 Safe clean and comfortable environment. Facility was unable to provide a policy and procedure for pest control. Review of work order dated 7/29/24, Resident room [ROOM NUMBER], documented the resident's family stating flies were coming in from around open, air conditioner. Work order indicated work order completed 7/29/24, seal around air conditioner. Review of work order dated 7/31/23, Resident Room's #100, #106, #107 noted reports of flies coming in from outside through gaps left by air conditioners. Work order documented completed, all three rooms sealed up air conditioners, done. Review of pest company National Accounts Service…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-14 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record conducted during the Standard survey completed on 8/14/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for one (Resident #59) of two residents reviewed for dignity. Specifically, Resident #59 was observed to have a hospice (specialized care for people nearing the end of life) nursing assessment completed in the dining room while they were being assisted with their lunch. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Resident's Rights Policy (General) revised 6/6/22 documented each staff member will be personally responsible for ensuring that the rights of each resident are respected and not violated. Staff shall ensure that all residents are afforded their right to a nondiscriminatory, dignified existence, self-determination, respect, full recognition of their individuality, consideration and privacy in treatment and care for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-14 · 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 a Complaint investigation (#NY00339558) during the Standard survey completed on 8/14/24, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to choose schedules, and health care consistent with their interests, assessments, and plan of care for three (Resident #1, #55, and #56) of six residents reviewed for choices. Specifically, Residents #1, #55, and #56 were not given showers twice a week as care planned and preferred. Additionally, Resident #56 was not gotten out of bed as care planned and preferred. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Resident's Rights Policy dated 5/23/22 documented each staff member will be personally responsible for ensuring that the rights of each resident are respected and not violated. Staff shall ensure that all residents are afforded their right to self-determination in treatment and care for personal needs. Refer to a copy of Resident's Rights and relevant policy regarding rights of residents. Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-14 · 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 and interview during the Standard survey completed on 8/14/24, the facility did not ensure housekeeping services necessary to maintain a sanitary, comfortable interior. Specifically, one (Unit 1) of 3 resident units had a strong urine odor present throughout the survey period. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Cleaning Occupied Resident Room last modified 10/12/18 documented the room occupied by a resident will be maintained in a clean, hygienic, and attractive state, without disrupting resident health care, routines, or the privacy of the resident. During an observation on 8/8/24 at 10:00 AM, 8/9/24 at 8:57 AM, 8/13/24 at 1:38 PM there was strong urine odor upon entering Unit 1 and down the Side B of the unit. During an observation on 8/8/24 at 11:46 AM, 8/12/24 at 8:39 AM, and 8/13/24 at 1:40 PM, Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a strong urine odor. During an observation and interview on 8/9/24 at 10:42 AM and 8/12/24 at 8:44 AM, there was a strong urine odor in the room 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 · D2024-08-14 · 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 a Complaint investigation (#NY00343934) during the Standard survey completed on 8/14/24 the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations including abuse, or mistreatment were reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made to the State Survey Agency for one (Resident #69) of six residents reviewed. Specifically, an allegation of resident abuse/mistreatment was not reported to the New York State Department of Health as required. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation, Protection and Reporting last modified 4/30/2024 documented the facility will provide protection for the health, welfare and rights of each resident residing in the facility. The Administrator or designee will report all alleged violations to, state agencies immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation of abuse, mistreatment. 1.Resident #69 had diagnoses that included stroke affecting right dominant side with hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of body)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-14 · 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 a Standard survey completed 8/14/24, the facility did not ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing for one (Resident #38) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, there was a delay in an assessment from a qualified individual of the resident's newly identified right buttock pressure ulcer to include a description, stage, location, and measurements. 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 2/27/23, documented that all staff interacting with the resident daily, including nursing assistants, will conduct skin observations and report any changes in skin condition to ensure timely evaluation and assessment. Any new skin conditions are communicated during shift-to-shift report and/or to the supervisor for further evaluation, as necessary. The policy documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (#NY00321764) during the Standard survey completed on 8/14/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one (Resident #84) of one resident reviewed for elopement. Specifically, Resident #84 was found in the parking lot by a visitor on 8/9/23. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Elopement-Wandering-Missing Resident last modified 10/11/2018, documented all residents are assessed as needed to determine risk level for unsafe wandering/elopement. In the event a resident successfully leaves the facility undetected and unsupervised, the Missing Resident procedure will be put into place immediately. 1.Resident #84 had diagnosis including dementia, cognitive communication deficit, and anxiety disorder. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 6/13/23 documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment and exhibited no wandering behaviors. 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 · D2024-08-14 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
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 8/14/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident was provided special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them while consuming meals for one (Resident #85) of one resident reviewed. Specifically, Resident #85 was not provided bowls for solid foods or mugs for liquid beverages as care planned. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Meal Serving-Resident dated 9/24/2018, documented that designated dietary staff will be responsible for ensuring that the necessary items are present at mealtime, or are obtained immediately upon request, for the consumption of food. Nursing staff or other appropriately trained staff will be responsible for fulfilling all non-food requests of residents, feeding of resident if needed, and for other dietary services that are part of the resident's care plan. Resident #85 had diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, unspecified dementia, senile degeneration of brain (loss of intellectual ability of the brain). The Minimum…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-14 · 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 on 8/14/24, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. for two (Resident #15 and Resident #82) of eight residents reviewed for infection control processes during care. Specifically, Certified Nurse Aide #4 and Certified Nurse Aide #18 did not wear proper personal protective equipment for a resident requiring enhanced barrier precautions with a multidrug resistant organism infection while they emptied a catheter bag (urine collection bag), changed the catheter bag to a leg bag, and transferred the resident to a shower chair (#15). In addition, Certified Nurse Aide #5 did not use proper hand hygiene during incontinent care (Resident #82). The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Infection Prevention Control…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard Survey completed on 12/6/19, the facility did not ensure provision of a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. One (Resident #20) of one resident reviewed for transmission-based precautions had issues. Specifically, the lack of maintaining proper infection control practices during incontinence care, the lack of maintaining appropriate infection control practices and hand hygiene after staff provided fecal incontinence care. The findings are: Review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Infection Prevention Control Program dated 2/5/18 will establish and maintain an infection prevention control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and help prevent the the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections The P&P titled Perineal, Incontinence Care dated 5/23/18 documents to wash, rinse and dry perineal are from top to bottom, inside to out. Then…
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 · C2024-08-14 · 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 the Standard survey completed on 8/14/24, the facility did not post, on a daily basis, the staff total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift. Specifically, the facility's posted staffing was not updated at the beginning of each shift and/or reflected changes in the schedule. Additionally, the facility did not have a policy for completing the DOH Staffing Report. The finding is: During observations from 8/8/24 through 8/14/24 from 7:45 AM through 5:00 PM, the DOH Staffing Report was posted at the front desk of the facility, however it did not include an updated total number of actual licensed and unlicensed nursing staff for each shift. Review of the last 30 days of the documents titled DOH Staffing Report revealed that the forms were not updated with the total number of actual licensed and unlicensed nursing staff for each shift. During an interview on 8/14/24 at 11:06 AM, the Scheduling Specialist…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-08-14 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 interview and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 8/14/24, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility must maintain medical records on each resident that are complete; accurately documented; readily accessible; and systematically organized. Specifically, three of five residents (Residents #1, #12, #59) reviewed for complete immunization records had issues with no documented evidence of signed consents or declinations for the 2023 influenza vaccine. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Influenza Immunization (Residents) dated 7/19/22 documented that at the appropriate time of year to determine eligibility for the influenza immunization will be indicated on the Influenza Vaccination Consent Declination Resident form. 1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of left sided hemiplegia (paralyzed on the left side), type 2 diabetes mellitus, and asthma. Review 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
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 | 2 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 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 |
| HARDY, MICHELLE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/13/2021 |
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 $3.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% 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 335790. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-14, 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.