North Gate Health Care Facility
7264 Nash Road, North Tonawanda, NY 14120 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 200 certified beds · (716) 694-7700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2024
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (64%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.1% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.7% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.2% | 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 | 4.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.5% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.4% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.3% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.2% | 13.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 79.2% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.8% | 20.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.2% | 9.6% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.39 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.43 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
51.4% 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 209 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 38.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 110 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 0.47 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 78% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 51.4%CMS range 43.4–58.3 | 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 | 12.7%CMS range 9.6–16.2 | 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 | 38.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 38.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 31.8% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.4–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 200 beds and averages 191.3 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.55 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.90 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 2.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.82 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.10 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 64% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-05-13 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 survey, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers (ulcers on the skin due to prolong pressure) received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, and prevent infection for three (3) (Residents #14, #57, and #207) of eight (8) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, there was lack of initial staging, description and measurements of pressure ulcers upon admission (Resident #57), there was a delay in initiating treatment and lack of an assessment to determine the type of wound present upon admission (Resident #207), and lack of weekly monitoring, including a description and measurements of pressure ulcers (Resident #14). Additionally, treatments were not documented as completed (Residents #57 and #14) and there was a delay in initiating a wound consultant recommendation (Resident #14). The findings include:The facility 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-13 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the survey, the facility failed to ensure residents have the right to personal privacy including accommodations for one (1) (Resident #5) of one (1) resident reviewed. Specifically, a privacy curtain in the resident's room did not fully enclose Resident #5's bed. The findings include: The policy and procedure titled Dignity, Respect and Privacy in Treatment and Care dated 10/2023 documented the resident has a right to be treated with dignity, respect, privacy and security. Privacy is provided for Residents while being examined and treated. Curtains are drawn and people not involved in the care or treatment are not present while the Resident is being examined or treated without Resident's permission. Staff at all times provide privacy for the Resident when dressing, undressing, bathing and toileting.Resident #5 had diagnoses which included major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and osteomyelitis (infection of the bone). The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 04/26/2026 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 · D2026-05-13 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during the survey, the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive care plans included to the extent practicable, the participation of the resident and the resident's representative(s); an explanation must be included in a resident's medical record if the participation of the resident and their resident representative is determined not practicable for the development of the resident's care plan for one (1) (Resident #112) of one (1) reviewed for care plan participation. Specifically, Resident #112 was not invited to participate in their care plan meetings. The findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled Interdisciplinary Care Planning revised 9/2025, documented each resident and their family members and/or legal representative will be encouraged to participate in the development of the resident's comprehensive care plan. The Interdisciplinary Team will review the Care Plan as scheduled and the patient and/or family member(s) are invited to attend this review meeting. Revised May 2023 Job Title/Job Code titled Social…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-13 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the survey, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision; and if necessary, must assist the resident in making appointments for one (1) (Resident #99) of one (1) resident reviewed. Specifically, Resident #99's glasses were reported missing on 03/04/2026 to facility staff and the resident was not seen by an eye doctor until it was arranged by the family 05/05/2026. Resident #99 complained that they were unable to see well without their glasses and were unable to read without their glasses. The findings include: The facility policy titled Consultants revised 2/2023 documented the facility used outside resources to furnish specific services provided by the facility. The facility arranges for qualified professional personnel to furnish specific services to residents and the facility. Consultant services were utilized in the following area: Optometrist. The facility policy titled…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 observation, interview and record review conducted during a Complaint (#NY00338861) investigation completed on 1/30/25 the facility did not ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident #2) of three resident reviewed. Specifically, Resident #2 did not receive weekly and comprehensive wound assessments and received applied dressings without a physician's order for a chronic left lower leg vascular ulcer (a chronic skin wound that develops due to poor blood circulation). In addition, the Minimum Date Set (MDS, resident assessment tool) was inaccurately assessed for the chronic left lower leg vascular ulcer. The finding is: Review of the facility's policy entitled Documentation of Pressure Ulcers and Chronic Wounds revised in June 2023 revealed weekly skin assessments are documented to include type of area (Pressure Ulcer, Stasis Ulcer, venous wound, arterial or diabetic), site, stage…
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 before2024-05-30 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review conducted during an Abbreviated survey (complaint #NY00322899) completed on 5/30/24 the facility did not ensure that residents who had an indwelling (foley) catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) received the appropriate care and services to manage catheters for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, there was lack of a provider order for the indwelling catheter (tube placed in bladder to drain urine), lack of documented urine outputs, and catheter care provided. The finding is: The policy titled Clinical Records revised 4/01 documented the medical record would be complete and accurately documented. The medical record would contain information pertinent to resident care and planning. The policy titled Catheter Drainage Bag Care revised 5/13, documented urinary drainage bag care was performed appropriately to prevent complications caused by the presence of an indwelling urethral catheter. Output was to be recorded every shift. Resident…
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 · D2024-03-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00304973) completed during the Standard survey on 3/13/24, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to be free from verbal abuse for one (Resident #12) of five residents reviewed. Specifically, on 11/3/22 Licensed Practical Nurse #12 was witnessed using vulgar language towards Resident #12. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Abuse Reporting and facility Incident Reporting revised 10/24/22, defined verbal abuse as any use of oral, written, or gestured language that includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents, or within their hearing distance, to describe residents, regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or disability. Resident #12 had diagnoses including vascular dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cerebral atherosclerosis (a disease where the arteries in the brain become hard and narrow). The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 9/3/22 documented Resident #12 had moderate cognitive impairment, was usually understood,…
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 · D2024-03-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 3/13/2024 the facility did not ensure that all residents care plans were implemented as planned, consistent with the resident rights and meet their preferences, goals and medical, physical, and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for one (Resident #14) of two reviewed. Specifically, Resident #14 was not care planned for the use of a positioning wedge. The resident was observed on multiple occasion lying in bed with the wedge positioned between the mattress and the bedframe. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Interdisciplinary Care Planning last revised 1/22/2024 documented the care plan is developed based on information obtained from but not limited to assessments/observations, diagnostics, and interviews with the resident/responsible party. The Comprehensive Care Plan and [NAME] must be current and accurately reflect the resident's status. The Care Plan/[NAME]…
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 · D2024-03-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 3/13/24, the facility did not ensure that services being provided met professional standards of quality for two (Resident #166 and #477) of four reviewed. Specifically, a medication transcription error led to Resident #166 receiving the wrong medications, causing a decrease in the resident's blood pressure which resulted in a transfer to the hospital for evaluation. Additionally, during a medication pass observation Licensed Practical Nurse #7 documented medications administered to Resident #477 using Licensed Practical Nurse #8 Unit Coordinators' employee identifier. The finding is: Review of the policy and procedure titled Medication/Treatment Discrepancy/Error dated 3/2011 documented that to assure proper medication/treatment administration, compliance with the legal requirements of medication administration, and to report all errors in medication administration and documentation. Further review of the policy and procedure documented that the significance of the medication errors is…
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 · D2024-03-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00328436) during a Standard survey completed on 3/13/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident who was unable to carry out Activities of Daily Living received the necessary assistance to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for one (Resident #120) of six residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #120 was not offered toileting or provided incontinent care as planned. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Activities of Daily Living dated 11/16 documented each resident will receive and the facility will provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment and care plan. The policy and procedure titled Toileting-Continence dated 1/1/20 documented toileting needs of each resident were identified and interventions were applied to promote and maintain…
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 · D2024-03-13 · tag F0839 — isolatedEmploy staff that are licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with state laws.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review during a Standard survey completed on 3/13/24, the facility did not ensure professional staff were licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with applicable State laws for one of three employees reviewed for licensure and certification. Specifically, the Associate Director of Quality and Education did not have the required license or certification and was observed providing hands on care for a resident on 3/12/24. Refer to F 677 D The finding is: Review of facility's undated Job Title: Associate Director for Quality and Education, documented they plan, organize, and directs all staff development programs and Continuous Quality Improvement Programs throughout the facility and in accordance with applicable federal, state, local and facility guidelines/regulations to ensure that the highest degree of quality is maintained at all times. Review of facility's Job Title: Licensed Practical Nurse reviewed August 2023 documented, provides nursing care in accordance with resident care policies and procedures and ensures the safety and well-being of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-05-17 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review completed during the Standard survey conducted from 5/11/22 through 5/17/22, the facility did not ensure that a resident with an indwelling catheter (Foley-tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine), received the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI) to the extent possible. Specifically, two (Resident's # 25, 157) of three residents reviewed for urinary catheters lacked proper infection control measures for residents with a history of UTI. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Catheter Drainage Bag Care revised 5/13 documented all nursing personnel care for urinary drainage bags. The catheter and tubing must remain patent, with the drainage bag kept below the level of the bladder. Care should be taken to make sure the tubing does not touch or drag on the floor. 1. Resident # 25 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included chronic kidney disease (CKD), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH-…
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 THE MCGUIRE GROUP — 6 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VESTRA SPV1 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 12/23/2020 |
| VESTRA SPV2 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 12/23/2020 |
| FARBENBLUM, EDWARD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/23/2020 |
| LIEBERMAN, ORLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/23/2020 |
| GRIGG, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| PHAN, TOM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| ROSSO, RALPH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| PAWLOWSKI, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.
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 $24K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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 335649. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-13, 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.