Chestnut Park Rehabilitation And Nursing Center

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.

45.6% 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 147 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 34.0% 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 100 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 75% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 80 beds and averages 73.5 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.28 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.73 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 2.69 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.51 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.70 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 66% is well above the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

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.

27 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-10-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (Case #2635234), the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for two (2) of four (4) residents (Resident #1 and 3) reviewed for falls. Specifically, [a.] Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment and had five (5) unwitnessed falls from [DATE] to [DATE]. The facility failed to develop appropriate interventions to mitigate falls when it was known that the resident was self-transferring. On [DATE] at 11:30 PM, Resident #1 was found on the floor unresponsive, unclothed and cold to the touch by Certified Nurse Aide #1. The resident's body temperature was unmeasurable on a facility thermometer, their oxygen saturation level was 73 percent (normal oxygen saturation levels are 95-100 percent), and they were sent to the hospital with symptoms consistent with hypothermia (occurs when core body temperature drops below 95 degrees Fahrenheit and is a medical emergency).…

  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
• Actual harm · G2025-10-27 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
  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 an abbreviated survey (Case #2635234), the facility did not ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for one (1) of four (4) residents (Resident #1) reviewed. Specifically, on [DATE] at 11:30 PM, Resident #1 was found unresponsive with an oxygen saturation of 73 percent (normal 95 to100 percent) and signs of respiratory distress. Emergency Medical Services documented 'extreme' wheezing in all lung fields and a clinical impression of pneumonia (an infection in one or both lungs). The resident was admitted to the hospital with septic shock (a progression from sepsis that causes a dramatic drop in blood pressure that can damage the lungs, kidneys, liver and other organs. When the damage is severe, it can lead to death) secondary to pneumonia/acute hypoxic respiratory failure (a medical condition…

  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
• Actual harm · Gcited before2023-05-22 · 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 during the recertification survey and an abbreviated survey (Case #NY00316948) dated 05/15/23 through 05/22/23, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect for 1 (Resident #23) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect. Specifically, on 04/16/2023 Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #2 did not use two staff for bed mobility as documented in Resident #23's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) . Subsequently, on 4/16/2023 Resident #23 rolled out of bed onto the floor sustaining a fracture of their left elbow and a gash requiring stitches on their left elbow. This resulted in actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy for Resident #23. This was evidenced by: Resident #23 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD), and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 02/04/2023 documented the resident was able to make themselves understood, was able to understand others, and was…

  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 · F2025-12-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — widespread
  Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record reviews and interviews during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure it established a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable accurate reconciliation and that it determined that drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs was maintained and periodically reconciled. Specifically, the facility did not document nursing unit narcotics were counted by two (2) licensed staff members and signed as appropriately done on the facility provided narcotic record sheets.This is evidenced by:The Policy and Procedure titled, Medications - Controlled Substance/Narcotic Management Protocol, effective 2/2021 and last revised 1/2025, documented it was the facility's policy to It is the policy of the facility to prescribe, administer, store and destroy all controlled substances within the accepted regulations of the responsible governing body. All narcotics will be counted and reconciled at the beginning of every shift with the outgoing and oncoming nurse. Both must sign…

  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 · F2025-12-12 · 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

  Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews during a recertification survey, the facility did not maintain an infection control program in accordance with professional standards of care. Specifically, a) for Resident #7, the licensed practical nurse removed a dressing without wearing gloves and b) the facility did not ensure signage and supplies for transmission-based precautions were readily available and visible.Resident #7The Policy and Procedure titled Wound Care dated 1/2025 stated hands should be washed and dried before and after a dressing change, and gloves should be wornResident #7 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of iron deficiency anemia (when there aren't enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout the body), pressure ulcer of left buttock (damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by prolonged pressure, friction, or shear force, most commonly forming on bony areas like the tailbone, hips, heels, and back), and peripheral vascular disease (a circulation disorder where blood flow to the limbs and organs is reduced due 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-12 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — pattern
  Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure development of policies and procedures for the monthly drug regimen review that included, but was not limited to, time frames for the different steps in the process. Specifically, the facility policy, titled Medication Therapy, did not identify time frames for the steps in the process. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Medication Therapy, reviewed 01/2025, stated the Consultant Pharmacist would review each resident's medication regimen monthly, as requested by the staff or practitioner, or when a clinically significant adverse consequence is confirmed or suspected, and the Medical Director and Consultant Pharmacist would collaborate to address issues of medication prescribing and monitoring with the practitioners and staff. The policy did not include time frames for each step in the process. During an interview on 09/25/2025 at 12:05 PM, Director of Nursing #1 agreed there should be time frames for each step of the medication review process and did not know why 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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure 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 staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute or serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, the automatic dishwashing machine was not operating within the manufacturer's instructions, sanitizing solution concentration could not be verified, and surfaces, equipment, and floors required cleaning or repair. This is evidenced by: During observations on 09/21/2025 at 10:56 AM: The automatic dishwashing machine final rinse was 197 degrees Fahrenheit at 7 (seven) pounds per square inch of water pressure; the dishwashing machine data plate states that the water pressure is to be between 15 and 25 pounds per square inch. The facility did not have a chemical test kit with graduations above 400 parts per million; the label on the bottle of sanitizer concentrate stated that when sanitizing food contact surfaces the dilution is to be between 200 and 400 parts per million. A wooden block-style knife-rack that cannot be disassembled was being used for knife…

  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 · E2025-12-12 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — pattern
  Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure garbage and refuse was disposed properly. Specifically, the garbage dumpster was heavily soiled below the side door and was not rodent proof. This is evidenced by: During observations on 09/21/2025 at 12:02 PM, the right dumpster was heavily soiled below the side door and was missing a drain hole plug and was not rodent proof. During an interview on 09/21/2025 at 12:07 PM, Assistant Food Service Manager #1 stated that they would speak with the maintenance department about having the dumpster cleaned and a drain hole plug installed. New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations Title 10 S415.14(h)

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  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 Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure Comprehensive Care Plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment based on changing goals, preferences, and needs of the resident and in response to current interventions for two (2) (Resident #'s 11 and 20) of 19 reviewed. Specifically, Resident #11's Comprehensive Care Plan for Anticoagulants was not resolved after the resident's order for Plavix was discontinued in 2023 and Resident #20's Comprehensive Care Plan was not reviewed or revised to include the resident's diagnosis of constipation and treatment/orders for constipation. This is evidenced by: The facility policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, last revised 01/2025, documented assessments of residents were ongoing, and care plans were revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition changed. The interdisciplinary team would review and update the care…

  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 · D2025-12-12 · tag F0813 — isolated
  Have 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, record review, and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure food brought for residents by family or visitors was stored safely and in a way that is either separate or easily distinguishable from facility food on one (1) of two (2) resident units. Specifically, resident food was not properly labeled, and the facility did not have a policy to assist residents in accessing food brought in to them. This is evidenced by: During observations on the North Wing kitchenette on 09/21/2025 at 11:39 AM, deli chicken salad was not labeled with a resident name, and two (2) homemade sandwiches were not labeled. During an interview on 09/21/2025 at 11:46 AM, Assistant Food Service Manager #1 stated that the homemade sandwiches were likely for a resident, and food brought to residents should be labeled with the resident name and dated. There was no documented evidence that the facility had a policy to date and label with the resident name food brought in to residents. There was no documented evidence that the facility had a policy to ensure…

  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 · Dcited before2025-10-27 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interviews and record review conducted during the abbreviated survey (Case # 2635234), the facility did not thoroughly investigate accidents for 1 (one) of 4 (four) residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, on 9/28/2025 at 11:30 PM, Resident #1 was found in their room on the floor next to their bed. Resident #1 was unresponsive except to painful stimuli and had uncontrollable shaking. Resident #1 was left for an undetermined amount of time without providing care. Subsequently, when assessing Resident #1's vital signs (key indicators of the body's essential physiological functions including temperature, heart rate, breathing rate, and blood pressure), Resident #1's body temperature was too low to be read by a thermometer. The facility did not have documented evidence of a thorough investigation to rule out if Resident #1 was abused and/or neglected.This is evidenced by:Cross-referenced to F689: Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/DevicesThe Policy and Procedure titled, Accident and Incident-Investigating and Reporting-Resident, reviewed 01/2025, documented all…

  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 · Dcited before2025-10-27 · 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 review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (Case # 2635234), the facility did not ensure the development and implementation of a person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's needs for 2 (two) (Resident #s 1 and 3) of 4 (four) residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not ensure it developed, implemented, monitored, and evaluated appropriate person-centered care plan interventions to mitigate falls for Resident #'s 1 and 3, who had multiple unwitnessed falls in their rooms related to self-ambulation. This is evidenced by: Cross-referenced to F689: Free of Accident Hazards/Supervision/Devices The Policy and Procedure titled, Falls and Fall Risk Managing, reviewed 1/2025, documented that based on previous evaluations and current data, staff must identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. If falling…

  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 before2025-02-03 · 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

  Based on observation, record review, and interviews during an abbreviated survey (Case #NY00357658), the facility did not ensure it protected the resident's right to be free from abuse and neglect for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, Registered Nurse #1 forcefully removed Resident #1 from the floor after the resident became unsteady and fell to the floor. Registered Nurse #1 did not assess the resident for injury prior to getting the resident up and ambulating them to their room. This is evidenced by: The Facility's Abuse Policy Prevention program updated on 10/20/2024 documented the following: Residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This included but was not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, and physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's symptoms. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia with behaviors (loss of memory, language, problem-solving…

  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 · Past Non-Compliance

“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.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to UPSTATE SERVICES GROUP — 17 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $778K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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