Aurelia Osborn Fox Memorial Hospital

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

46.0% 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 109 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 26.3% 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 57 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 0.49 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 80% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 131 beds and averages 104.3 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 27 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.71 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.35 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 3.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.08 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.86 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 37% is about the same as 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.

29 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 18 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2025-04-22 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview conducted during a recertification and complaint (Case # NY00345612) survey from [DATE] to [DATE], the facility failed to ensure residents were free from neglect for one (1) (Resident #109) of 23 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #109 was assessed by physical therapy on [DATE] as having total dependence on staff and required maximum assistance of two (2) staff members for bed mobility. As a result of the facility's lack of communication for updating the care plan to incorporate the physical therapy assessment, Resident #109 rolled out of bed and suffered a fractured (broken) hip while receiving care from one (1) staff member on [DATE] at 5:05 PM. The failure to provide required staff services and oversight to meet the resident's needs resulted in actual harm to Resident #109 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. This is evidenced by: The facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Abuse Reporting, last revised [DATE] and last reviewed [DATE], documented 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 · F2025-04-22 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespread
  Provide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the provision of sufficient nursing staff to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident throughout the facility. Specifically, residents were not assisted with care when requested, staff complained of not able to complete all the required tasks assigned and provide resident care, and the staffing sheets provided while on site did not accurately reflect the needs of the facility population. This is evidenced by: Facility Assessment The facility assessment dated 8/2024 documented that the staffing plan was based on the resident population and their needs for care and support. The staffing plan documented the following daily staffing needs: Average daily census: 103 (Unit 1 with 1-24 residents, Unit 2 with 2-45 residents, Unit 3 with 3-34 residents). The total facility's certified beds numbered 130, with…

  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.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2025-04-22 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — widespread
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  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 interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards of practice for two (2) (Unit 100 and Unit 300) of two (2) Medication Rooms; and three (3) (Unit 100, 200 and 300) of three (3) Medication Carts reviewed. Specifically, (a.) two medications had expired; (b.) one open bottle of tuberculin Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) solution had expired; (c.) one Humalog Kwik pen had an illegible open date; (d.) four open inhalers had no open or expiration date; one unopened inhaler had an open date; (e.) one bottle of eye drops had no open and or expiration date (f.) two bottles of eye drops had open and or expiration date discrepancies; (g.) an unopened Solostar Kwik insulin pen was in medication cart unrefrigerated. This is evidenced by: Regulation 483.45(g) Labeling of Drugs and Biologicals, documents Drugs and biologicals used in the facility must be 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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2025-04-22 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespread
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that food was prepared by methods that conserved the food ' s nutritive value, flavor and appearance and were palatable for 18 (Resident #s 1, 2, 4, 9, 21, 23, 31, 32, 39, 48, 59, 63, 64, 68, 90, 91, 92, and 94) of 22 residents who were reviewed for palatable and attractive food and drink. Specifically, (a.) During an interview during Resident Council held on 4/15/2025, six (6) residents complained that the food was inedible and cold, that drinks were warm, vegetables were hard and under cooked, and that the meat was tough. (b.) Resident # ' s 1, 9, 21, 23, 31, 32, 63, 64, 68, 90, 91, 92, and 94 complained of food being of not palatable with meat being overcooked and vegetables undercooked, tasteless and without variety. (c.) Residents on one (1) of three (3) units received expired milk. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Resident Rights and Dignity, dated 5/2012, documented that the facility was responsible to offer food substitutes of similar…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · F2025-04-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  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, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure they established and maintained 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 five (5) (Resident # ' s 21,35,92, 95, and 99) of 15 residents reviewed for infection control. Specifically, (a.) Resident #s 21, 35, 92, and 95 had wounds that required dressing changes and were not placed on Enhanced Barrier Precautions; and (b.) for Resident #99, infection control practice was not maintained during a dressing change and skin treatment. This is evidenced by: The facility policy, Nursing Home Infection Prevention and Control Program, revised 1/2023, documented the following: • Under Policy: There is an active, effective, facility wide infection control program for the surveillance, prevention and control of infections as well 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 · F2025-04-22 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespread
  Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
  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 and interviews conducted during a recertification survey from 4/14/2025 - 4/22/2025, the facility did not ensure the environment was functional, sanitary, and comfortable for residents, staff, and the public. Specifically, all three units (100, 200 and 300) had foul smelling odors of urine and feces. Unit 100 carpet was soiled with multiple stains throughout; Unit 200 had dirty linens under sink and Unit 300 had smelled consistent with cannabis. This is evidenced by: The Facility ' s Policy and Procedure titled, Personal Appearance, revised 3/17/2025, documented the policy intends to provide a general expectation for personal appearance for facility ' s employees and is not meant to capture all necessary dress and appearance requirements nor represent a complete listing of clothing or items of apparel acceptable throughout the facility. All employees are to take positive steps toward ensuring that they present an overall professional image. Employees with offensive odor upon their person or…

  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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-04-22 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — pattern
  Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity in a manner and environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life for five (5) (Resident #s 21, 31, 32, 64, and 99) of 23 residents reviewed for dignity and respect. Specifically, (a.) Resident #s 31 and 32 had Foley catheters that were fully visible from the hallway, outside resident rooms and in common areas, and not in cover bags; (b.) Resident #64 reported that staff spoke to them 'like they were retarded' and ignored their requests to open the room dividing curtain when their roommate was not in the room; (c.) Resident #99's repeated request to be toileted was ignored by staff while the surveyor was on the resident's unit; and (d.) Resident #21 stated that staff did not provide care in a dignified way, handled them roughly, and that staff would smell of marijuana and cigarettes which the resident found offensive. This 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-04-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
  Develop 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Resident #109 Resident #109 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of generalized osteoarthritis (when the cartilage that cushions the ends of bones in the joints gradually wears away), transient ischemic attacks (a short period of symptoms similar to those of a stroke), and repeated falls. The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 2/09/2024 documented the resident could understand and be understood by others. The comprehensive care plan titled Activities of Daily Living, last revised 4/11/2024, documented Resident #109 required assistance with Activities of Daily Living task performance as follows: Effective 1/08/2024, Resident #109 was a supervision at mealtime; partial moderate one (1) staff member assist for bed mobility; partial moderate one (1) staff member assist for grooming, bathing and dressing. Partial/moderate one (1) staff member assist for transfers and toileting. Non-ambulatory. There was no documented evidence the resident ' s care plan was revised on 3/08/2024, to include the 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-04-22 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident was screened for a mental disorder or intellectual disability prior to admission for three (3) (Resident # ' s 9, 31, and 91) of 23 residents reviewed. Specifically, there was no documentation that a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR, New York State Department of Health Form 695) was completed for these three (3) residents by a qualified screener prior to admission to the facility. This is evidenced by: A facility policy titled, Pre-admission Screening & Resident Review (PASRR) Assessments, effective 9/2005 and last reviewed 7/2023, documented that all residents admitted for placement at the facility who met the requirements of mental disability via the Level 1/Level 2 Screen would have a referral completed to the appropriate agency for a federal per-admission screening and resident review (PASARR). The Purpose documented was to assure residents with diagnoses of mental…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the development of comprehensive person-centered care plans, that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for one (1) (Resident #72) of 23 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. Specifically, for Resident #72, comprehensive care plan was not developed to address the resident's medical issues requiring medications. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, last reviewed date 5/2024, documented the purpose to meet each resident's preference and goals, and address each resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. Under Procedures, documented routine data was collected, e.g. physical signs and symptoms, lab values, resident history, medications, activities of daily living, preferences and resident goals from 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 Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-04-22 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolated
  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, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure ongoing provision of programs to support each resident and their choices of activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for one (1) (Resident #35) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, Residents #35, was not provided with any meaningful, accommodating activities to maintain their highest quality of life. This is evidenced by: The facility's Policy and Procedure Titled Activities Department Policy, revised 12/2024, documented it's policy is: To help residents maintain their optimal level of physical, mental, psychosocial, spiritual, and emotional functioning and independence. Facility promotes individual achievements, self-expression, creativeness, recognition, security, growth through diversified activities, to assist in developing social relationships, a sense of usefulness, a sense of pride in accomplishments, and a sense of self-respect. The Activities Department would…

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

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

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.

What families pay in NY