St Josephs Home
950 Linden Street, Ogdensburg, NY 13669 · Non profit - Corporation · 82 certified beds · (315) 393-3780 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 5 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 | 16.4% | 14.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.6% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 3.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.9% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.6% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 11.2% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.5% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.5% | 13.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.51 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.68 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 82 beds and averages 79.2 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.02 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 2.68 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.15 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below 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.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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 observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality during meal service in two (2) of two (2) dining rooms (First and Second floor dining rooms). Specifically, residents stated they were not allowed to visit residents at other tables and/or visitors were not allowed to visit in the dining rooms during and after mealtimes. Findings include: The facility policy Resident's Rights Policy, reviewed 11/2025, documented the residents were provided a homelike environment which fully provides their right to a dignified existence. The residents had a right to a homelike environment and to incorporate personal and cultural preferences within their goals of care. Residents have the right to immediate and unlimited access by friends and family. Residents had the right to interact with members of the community both inside and outside the facility and the right to make choices about…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-20 · 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
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choice for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #3) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #3 had diabetes and was responsible for reading their own blood sugar results with a blood glucose sensor device (a small sensor-based system applied to the back of the arm that provides continuous glucose readings without finger sticks). The resident's twice a day weekly blood glucose finger sticks was discontinued without a medical order and their blood glucose levels and sliding scale insulin were not documented as completed two (2) times in March 2026. Findings include:The facility policy Blood Glucose Monitoring, last reviewed 12/2025, documented residents with diabetes mellitus would have their blood glucose monitored by a registered nurse or licensed practical nurse as ordered by the physician and by nursing judgement. The blood glucose would be recorded with 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 · D2026-03-20 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis services (filtration of blood when the kidneys do not work) received such services consistent with professional standards of practice for one (1) of one (1) resident (Resident #12) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #12 received hemodialysis treatments at a community-based dialysis center, and the facility did not have a plan to adequately monitor and care for the resident pre and post dialysis. Findings include:There was no documented evidence of a dialysis policy.Resident #12 had diagnoses including chronic kidney disease and dependence on dialysis. The 12/13/2025 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, had end stage kidney disease, and was dependent on dialysis treatments.The Comprehensive Care Plan reviewed and revised on 03/15/2026 documented the resident had kidney failure and received hemodialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at the dialysis center. The care plan did not include any specific care instruction,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-20 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided medically related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident for one (1) of one (1) resident (Resident #6) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #6 had a history of depression with episodes of night terrors and did not have a person-centered care plan to address the resident's depression and did not have social work follow up to address the resident's history of post-traumatic stress disorder or psychosocial concerns.Findings include:The facility policy Resident's Rights Policy, last reviewed 11/2025 documented the facility would ensure the residents are provided with a home like environment which fully provides their right to a dignified existence including full recognition of their individuality and privacy and to participate in their care possible. The resident has the right to make choices about all aspects of their life. The facility will meet the residents' individual needs and preference 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-29 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/25/2024-3/29/2024, the facility did not review the risks and benefits of enabler rails or obtain informed consent prior to the installation of enabler rails with the resident or resident representative for 10 of 10 residents (Residents #2, #4, #81, #41, #60, #71, #59, #23, #80, and #62) reviewed. Specifically, there was no documented evidence the risks and benefits of enabler rails were explained to the residents, or their representatives or consents were obtained prior to bed rail use for Residents #2, #4, #81, #41, #60, #71, #59, #23, #80, and #62 Findings include: The facility policy Physical Restraints last reviewed 9/2023, documented the facility is committed to reducing the use of unnecessary physical restraints and ensuring residents are free of physical restraint unless permitted by federal regulation. Physical Restraint included any manual method, or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the resident cannot remove…
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 · Ecited before2024-03-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/25/2024-3/29/2024, the facility did not ensure storage, preparation, distribution, and service of food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 main kitchen. Specifically, the main kitchen had undated and uncovered food, the food slicer and can opener had food debris on them, and ceiling tiles and walls were not clean. Findings include: The facility policy Kitchen Cleaning Standards revised 5/2023 documented cleaning of the kitchen is a difficult task as many things need to occur to prepare meals, meet resident needs, and assure appropriate food temperatures. Cleaning the kitchen is everyone's responsibility. Many areas of the kitchen are high and difficult to reach and may need maintenance to assist. If areas require cleaning, put in a maintenance request. Many areas are subject to spray and soiling, every effort should be made to clean these areas when needed. Any concerns regarding cleaning needs should be communicated to the cook, who can get staff…
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 · D2024-03-29 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00297353) surveys conducted 3/25/2024-3/29/2024, the facility did not implement policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #23) reviewed. Specifically, recreation aide #8 witnessed an alleged abuse incident by certified nurse aide #7 towards Resident #23 and did not intervene to stop the interaction and did not immediately report the alleged abuse to Administration per the facility policy. Additionally, certified nurse aide #7 completed their shift after the alleged abuse incident occurred. Findings include: The facility policy Resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment and misappropriation of resident property revised 1/2024 documented the facility encouraged and supported all residents, staff, families, visitors, volunteers, and resident representatives in reporting any suspected acts of abuse, neglect, exploitation, involuntary seclusion, or misappropriation. Abuse was defined as the willful infliction 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 · D2024-03-29 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 during the recertification survey conducted 3/25/2024-3/29/2024, the facility did not ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #14) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #14's prepared medications were left in a cup unattended on their bedside table for over 5 hours and licensed practical nurse #3 documented the medications were administered at 6:00 AM when they were not. Findings include: The facility policy Medication Policies Program reviewed 9/2023 documented medications were administered by a licensed nurse. The person that administered the medication ensured the six rights (right person, medication, dose, route, time, and documentation). Resident medication was accurately acquired, received, dispensed, administered, and documented in a safe and efficient manner. The facility policy Self-Administration Policy reviewed 9/2023 documented residents had the right to self-administer medications. Standards had 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 · Dcited before2021-12-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 12/7/21-12/10/21, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in one isolated area (kitchen exhaust hood area) in the main kitchen. Specifically, the kitchen exhaust hood and Ansul lines (special hazard fire protection products) over the oven and stoves were grease and dust laden. Findings include: The semi-annual hood cleaning logs documented the kitchen hoods were last cleaned on 9/9/21 and 5/11/21. When observed on 12/7/21 at 10:18 AM, the ventilation filters under the kitchen exhaust hoods over the cooking appliances (stove, fryer, and ovens) contained grease and were dust laden in sections. The Ansul suppression lines were observed with grease and were dust laden. When interviewed on 12/8/21 at 11:40 AM, the Food Service Manager stated maintenance should be cleaning hoods semi-annually by taking the vents outside to power wash and degrease them. The Manager stated 9/2021 was the last time the hood…
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 · D2021-12-10 · tag F0813 — isolatedHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted from 12/7/21-12/10/21 the facility failed to have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption for 2 of 2 nursing units (Units 1 and 2) reviewed. Specifically, the facility policy Food Brought in From Home did not document how long food items could be kept before discarding, how to safely reheat and serve residents' personal food including how to properly take food temperatures and what appropriate reheating temperatures were. Finding include: The facility policy Food Brought in From Home dated 7/12/21, did not document how to safely reheat food for residents, how to take temperatures of the food, what temperature foods must be reheated to, or how long residents' food brought in from outside the facility should be kept before being discarded. During an observation on 12/7/21 at 11:47 AM, the Unit 2 nourishment refrigerator had 3 resident food items that were properly labeled.…
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 · B2026-03-20 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview the facility failed to post on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift, the current resident census and the total number and the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift, in a prominent location readily accessible to residents and visitors for five (5) of five (5) days (03/16/2026-03/20/2026) reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not post staffing information at the beginning of the shift on 03/16/2026 and was posted in the afternoon. The posting included the number of staff only and on subsequent days of survey the posting did not include the current resident census, and the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care.Findings include: During an observation on 03/16/2026 at 1:08 PM there was no staffing posting displayed in the lobby on the sign in table, on the bulletin board above the sign in table, in the reception area, or in the glass cases down the hall from chapel or in the breezeway.During an observation on…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| STEELE, COLLEEN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/16/2010 |
| BACKUS, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/28/2018 |
| BROWN, SISTER SHIRLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/28/2012 |
| HAMMOND, CURT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2014 |
| HOLLIS, JOANNA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/27/2019 |
| KELLY, THERESE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2014 |
| LAFLAIR, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2014 |
| LAVALLEY, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/28/2006 |
| MORGAN, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2014 |
| ROMANO, CATHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/27/2019 |
| SEYMOUR, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/28/2006 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
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 335087. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-20, 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.