No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Degraff Memorial Hospital-Skilled Nursing Facility

445 Tremont Street, North Tonawanda, NY 14120 · For profit - Corporation · 80 certified beds · (716) 690-2080 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (716) 690-2080 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citations — no harm found (F0609, F0610) — most recent Dec 2025
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — 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 payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
445 Tremont Street · (716) 694-4500 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
521 Division St · (716) 260-1131 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
118 Christiana St
Park
2 Courtside Dr · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased10.4%14.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.2%5.8%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.3%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.6%1.3%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.9%19.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.0%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.7%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication8.6%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.2%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.7%6.5%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control20.8%19.5%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table7.0%13.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.9%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.3%78.8%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission8.6%20.6%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit4.0%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.111.701.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.921.361.80better

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 78 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

51.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
46.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.54U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.29hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.24hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 46.7% 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 30 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 0.54 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 84% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF51.8%CMS range 43.5–61.951.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.3%CMS range 6.6–15.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge46.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge36.7%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge46.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified95.2%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened11.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization5.9%CMS range 2.8–12.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.771.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

RN hours/ resident / day
LPN hours/ resident / day
Aide hours/ resident / day
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
RN hoursweekends
53.6%
Total nursing turnover
17.6%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 80 beds and averages 77.0 residents a day — about 96% 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.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.34 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.22 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.15 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% 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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-10-03)
0
at the previous standard inspection (2023-02-22)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-08 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 observation, interview, and record review conducted during an Abbreviated survey (Complaint #2678647), the facility did not ensure that all alleged abuse violations were reported immediately but not later than two (2) hours after the allegation was made to the Administrator of the facility and to the State Survey Agency for one (1) (Resident #1) of three (3) residents reviewed. Specifically, staff did not report an allegation of physical abuse to the Administrator immediately which resulted in delayed reporting to the New York State Department of Health within the required time frames. The finding is:The policy titled Identification and Reporting of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment of a Skilled Nursing Facility Resident, as per Public Health Law Section 2803-d last revised on 10/22/24 documented any nursing home employee or volunteer who becomes aware of abuse, mistreatment, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation shall immediately report their concerns to the Nursing Home Administrator or designee. The Long-Term Care Administrator will report abuse to 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-10-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — widespread
    Ensure 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during a complaint investigation (NY00346092) conducted during an extended standard survey from 9/26/2024 to 10/3/2024, the facility did not to ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision to prevent accidents for three (Residents #12, 14, and 29) of three reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not monitor the wander guard signaling device's (tag/bracelet) battery life/functionality of those that were assigned (#12, 14, 29) and Resident #14 exited the building unsupervised without staff's knowledge. In addition, the facility staff lacked education and training regarding the wander alert system and policy. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled WanderGuard dated 12/2022 documented all batteries of activated bracelet signaling devices are continuously monitored by the wander guard computer system and, if a battery is low, an alarm on the computer will be activated and identify the low battery; and nursing will be responsible 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
  • Potential for harm · F2024-10-03 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — widespread
    Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review conducted during an extended survey completed on 10/3/24, the facility's quality assurance and performance improvement program did not perform improvement activities that tracked adverse resident events, analyze their causes, and implement preventative actions and mechanisms that include feedback and learning throughout the facility. Specifically, the facility did not ensure their WanderGuard policy was updated; that staff were educated about the wander guard system, and did not ensure preventive actions were implemented to ensure resident safety. The finding is: Refer to: F 689 - Free from Accident Hazards/Supervision and Devices to Prevent Accidents The 2024 Facility Assessment Review dated 2/6/2024 documented the facility assessment was used to determine gaps in service or expected outcomes, when identified, are reviewed and correction plans are discussed for implementation. The corrective activities are then review during subsequent meetings to assure changes are sustained and there is no recurrence of the issue. The policy and procedure…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Extended survey completed on 10/3/24, the facility did not exercise reasonable care for the protection of the resident's property from loss or theft for one (Resident #51) of three residents reviewed for personal property. Specifically, Resident #51 had no pants available to wear in their closet and their inventory sheets documented the resident had 17 pairs of pants. The finding is: Resident #51 had diagnoses including dementia, age related physical debility, and high blood pressure. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 8/11/24 documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition. The comprehensive care plan dated 8/21/24 documented the resident required extensive assistance with dressing, was non ambulatory, and was not able to make their needs known. During a telephone interview on 9/27/24 at 9:54 AM, the resident's family member stated when they came to visit, the resident would be wearing clothes that were too small for them, like they weren't the clothes they had brought in for 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 an Extended Recertification survey completed on 10/3/24, the facility did not 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 one (Resident #2) of four residents reviewed for infection control processes during care. Specifically, staff did not wear proper personal protective equipment during hands on care and transfer of the resident, who required enhanced barrier precautions. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated 6/18/24 documented personal protective equipment is used to prevent the spread of multi-drug resistant organism transmission. The recommendations include the use of enhanced barrier precautions during high-contact activities for residents with chronic wounds (open wounds that typically require a dressing change such as…

    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 · D2021-05-14 · 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 observation, interview and record review conducted during a Standard Survey completed on 5/14/21, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations of abuse, neglect or mistreatment including injuries of unknown origin are thoroughly investigated for one (Resident #24) of three residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, the facility did not complete an investigation of bruising to the resident's left forehead and left periorbital (area around the eye) area. The finding is: The facility Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Identification and Reporting of Abuse, Neglect or Mistreatment of a Skilled Nursing Facility Resident, as per Public Health Law Section 2803-d with revised date of 12/19 revealed that the facility is to begin an investigation immediately upon discovery of an incident. Specifically, an investigation of injuries of unknown origin must be immediately investigated to rule out abuse. Injuries included in injuries of unknown origin are, but not limited to, bruising of the inner thigh,…

    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 · D2021-05-14 · 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 interview and record review conducted during an Abbreviated survey (Complaint #NY00253905) completed during the Standard Survey on 5/14/21, the facility did not ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices. Specifically, one (Resident #216) of two residents reviewed for quality of care lacked follow up to have staples removed, from left hip, that were in place greater than three weeks. The finding is: Review of the facility policy and procedure entitled Staple Removal dated 3/19/19 revealed this document outlines the responsibilities of the Registered Nurse (RN) to safely remove incision closures (staples) used to approximate edges of an incision after healing has occurred. Instructions included check the Medical Doctor (MD)/Nurse Practitioner (NP) order to determine the details for the procedure. Document in a progress note the procedure, condition of incision, pertinent…

    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 · D2021-05-14 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide 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 completed during the Standard survey completed on 5/14/21, 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, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for one (Resident #6) of two residents observed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, infection control practices were not maintained during a pressure ulcer treatment application and the treatment was not completed as ordered by the physician. The finding is: Review of facility policy titled Physician Orders- Long Term Care (LTC) dated 7/21/14 documented telephone or other verbal orders shall be accepted only by a license nurse, pharmacist or such other licensed practitioner as permitted by law. Telephone and verbal orders that follow this policy are considered to be valid orders and will be executed as if the authorized prescriber wrote them. Review of the facility policy titled Pressure Ulcers-LTC revised 11/17 documented the resident's…

    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 · D2021-05-14 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview completed during the Standard survey completed 5/14/21, the facility did not ensure that a resident with limited range of motion receives appropriate treatment and equipment to prevent further decrease in range of motion for one (Resident #7) of two residents observed for range of motion (ROM-normal range of motion of a joint) services. Specifically, Resident #7 did not have rolled washcloths to the right and left hands as recommended by OT (Occupational Therapy), and lacked comprehensive assessments, including measurements of joint mobility. Additionally, there was no documented evidence to support range of motion services were provided as recommended. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure (P&P) entitled Physical / Occupational Therapy- SNF-Range of Motion (Preventative routine) dated 7/23/19 documented ROM programs are implemented by the rehabilitation department to prevent and manage contractures, maintain joint mobility, and for stretching 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2021-05-14 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — pattern
    Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
    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 5/14/21, the facility did not provide, based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community. Specifically, one (Resident #14) of one resident reviewed for activities revealed the resident was not asked to participate in activities and was not able to go outside of the facility. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Progress Notes - Activities effective date 3/29/16 revealed the Activities Department personnel will periodically, and at least quarterly, assess the resident's response to the activities plan of care and treatment provided. The progress note will be a composite of information obtained…

    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
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
KALEIDA HEALTHOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 04/01/1998
PRUDENTIAL HUNTOON PAIGE ASSOCIATES LTC ISAOAOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTERESTsince 04/01/1998
PAL, AMANDEEPIndividualCONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/01/2024
CHISHOLM, HUGHIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2024
DRAKE, MATTHEWIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 12/05/2021
DUNN, JENNIFERIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/01/2024
HARDY, STEPHENIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/11/2019
HART, JONATHANIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/01/2024
MCCROREY, ANGELAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 06/01/2019
O'CONNELL, KATIEIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 06/01/2018
ORMOND, JO ANNIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 08/19/2019
QUINT-BOUZID, MARJORIEIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2024
SILVESTRINI, CORINIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/01/2024
AQUINO, NICHOLASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2015
BEAUFORD, THOMASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 04/01/2022
BOYD, DONALDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 05/01/2009
CHEVLI, KIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 04/01/2022
CLEMO, LORRIEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2017
CROSBY, GARYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2017
EDDIB, ABEERIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2019
JAVED, MUHAMMEDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/01/2019
MAGGIO, WILLIAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2015
MATTHEWS, GEORGEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/01/2008
MCEVOY, TIMOTHYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/01/2019
O'LEARY, PAULIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/01/2018
PERSONS, JOHNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 04/01/2022
ROSS, CHRISTOPHERIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2015
RUSIN, MARY LOUIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 05/01/2015
BARRETT, IANIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 10/01/2022
BRYANT, SHANNONIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 12/01/2020
HUGHES, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/01/2014
MINEO, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/01/2022
NADLER, JAMIEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2022
SNYDER, KENNETHIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2022
SPAULDING, ALYSONIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/01/2014

CMS files one row per role, so the 40 rows in the source record cover these 35 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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in New York
$15,528/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$16,729/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,110/mo
Assisted living

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 335669. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-03, 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.

What to do next