Cedar Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
32 Cedar Lane, Ossining, NY 10562 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 153 certified beds · (914) 762-1600 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Apr 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 2 to 1 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 | 23.3% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.7% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 44.9% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.8% | 12.5% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.4% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.1% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.5% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.9% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.8% | 13.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 69.7% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.3% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.1% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.89 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.60 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
49.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 326 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 70.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 168 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 64% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 49.4%CMS range 43.9–55.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.0%CMS range 6.8–12.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 70.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 70.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 71.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 99.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 95.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.9%CMS range 5.3–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.27 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 153 beds and averages 139.2 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 14 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.74 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.30 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.80 to 0.60 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%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, and interviews during an abbreviated survey (2622924), the facility did not ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for behaviors. Specifically, there was no documented evidence of a behavior care plan for Resident # 1 who had a diagnosis of dementia with other behavioral disturbances and had multiple nursing progress notes as well as staff interviews that revealed that Resident # 1 refused care and had behaviors.A review of the facility's Resident Assessment and Care Planning Policy last revised 01/25/2025 documented it is the policy of the facility to maintain accurate and current comprehensive assessment and person-centered plan of care for each resident.The facility's Activities of Daily Living Policy dated 5/2025 documented it is the policy of the facility that all residents are assisted with their activities of daily living according to each resident's individual plan of care. admission Minimum…
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 before2025-11-04 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and interviews during an abbreviated survey (2622924), the facility did not ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 (one) out of 3 (three) residents reviewed for activities of daily living. Specifically, Resident #1 had 2 (two) grievances on file for 08/25/2025 and 09/15/2025 related to care. 1) 08/25/2025 Resident #1's Representative found them in the facility smelling of urine and prior to their arrival a family member was there and reported that staff did not change Resident # 1. 2) On 09/15/2025 Resident #1's Representative found them in the day room requesting to go to the bathroom and Certified Nurse Aide #4 refused to put them on the bedpan and stated the resident is a Hoyer and threw the bedpan. On 08/17/2025 the resident was transferred to the hospital with admitting diagnosis of sepsis. On 08/21/2025 documented discharge diagnosis sepsis,…
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 · E2025-04-11 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during recertification and abbreviated survey (NY00353725) conducted from 4/6/2025-4/11/2025, the facility did not ensure the residents rights to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Specifically, 1) the facility did not provide adequate amount of bath linens for all the residents; and 2) rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] were observed with displaced base board moldings. The findings include: 1. The policy and procedure titled Linen Policy undated documented Par levels will be maintained according to the facility par-level inventory directory. Par levels will be reviewed and adjusted based on census and resident population. Review of the facility PAR level for linens, undated, documented: - North unit census 52 residents, dayshift 40 towels, evening shift 40 towels. - South unit census of 52 residents dayshift 40 towels, evening shift 40 towels. - East unit census 49 residents dayshift 40 towels, evening shift 40 towels. - Night closet 40 towels…
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 before2025-04-11 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00364873) from 4/06/2025 to 4/11/2025, the facility did not ensure that each resident who was unable to perform activities of daily living received the necessary care and services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for three of five dependent residents (Residents #387, # 124, and # 56) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living. Specifically, 1) there was inconsistent documentation that Resident #387 who required assistance with bowel and urinary incontinence had there brief changed every 3 to 4 hours, 2.) Resident #124 was observed with long, dirty fingernails and 3) Resident # 56 stated they had not received a shower or had their hair washed since they were admitted to the facility. The findings include: The undated policy and procedure titled Activities of Daily Living documented all residents are assisted with their activities of daily living. The unit nurses are responsible for creating…
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 · E2025-04-11 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide 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
Based on resident, family and staff interviews, and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that sufficient staff was available to meet the needs of all residents. Specifically, actual staffing levels were repeatedly below facility assessed minimum levels on the following dates (3/8/25, 3/9/25, 3/10/25, 3/22/25, 3/23/25, 4/3/25, 4/5/25 and 4/9/25). The findings include: The July 2024 Facility Assessment documented the minimum staffing for Certified Nurse Aides for all 3 units was 14 certified nurse aides for the 7 AM- 3 PM shift, 12 certified nurse aides for the 3 PM- 11 PM shift and 7 certified nurse aides for the 11 PM to 7 AM shift. The 3/8/25 staffing sheet for the 7 AM-3 PM shift documented a total of 9 Certified Nurse Aides for all three units when the minimum requirement was 14. The 3/9/25 staffing sheet for the 7 AM-3 PM shift documented a total of 10 Certified Nurse Aides for all three units when the minimum requirement was 14. The 3/10/25 staffing sheet for the 7 AM-3 PM shift documented a total of 11 Certified Nurse Aides for…
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 · E2025-04-11 · tag F0887 — patternEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 4/6/25 to 4/11/25, the facility did not ensure infection control prevention practices were maintained to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for all residents. Specifically, the facility did not provide documentation of screening, administration or declination and education provided for 10 of 10 staff (Certified Nurse Aides #8 and #25, Laundry Aide #20, Housekeeping Aide #21, Licensed Practical Nurses #3, #23, #24, Registered Nurses #22 and #27 and Food Service Worker #26), reviewed for COVID-19 vaccinations. The findings are: During the recertification survey, the facility was asked to provide documentation that COVID-19 vaccination was offered, education was provided, and staff had the opportunity to consent or decline the vaccine for Certified Nurse Aides #8 and #25, Laundry Aide #20, Housekeeping Aide #21, Licensed Practical Nurses #3, #23, #24, Registered Nurses #22 and #27, and Food Service Worker #26, but none was provided. During an…
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 before2025-04-11 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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 observation and interview during the recertification survey from 4/6/2025 to 4/11/2025, the facility did not ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity. This was evident for 2 residents (Resident #79 and Resident #18) during dining observations. Specifically, 1) Certified Nurse Aides #13 and #18, Occupational Therapist #15 and Home Health Aide were observed standing over Resident #79 while assisting the resident with meals. 2) Resident #18 was fed by staff standing during the meal. Findings include: The undated facility policy, Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity documented it is the policy of Cedar Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation to treat each resident with respect and dignity. 1) Resident #79 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, protein calorie malnutrition, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented the resident had severely impaired cognition and was dependent on staff for feeding. During an observation on 4/6/25 at 5:45 PM, Resident #79…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 interviews and record reviews conducted during a recertification survey it was determined that for 1 of 14 residents (Resident #102) during a resident council meeting, the facility did not ensure each resident was free from misappropriation of resident property. Specifically, the facility did not safeguard packages when delivered to the facility for Resident #102 who reported a missing package 11/15/24 and was not reimbursed until 4/8/25. The findings are: The undated policy titled Missing Resident Property documented missing resident property is defined as the loss or unauthorized use or removal of personal property regardless of the monetary value of the item(s). Resident #102 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Spinal Stenosis, Pain and Major Depressive Disorder. The Comprehensive Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 11/26/24, and the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #102 had intact cognition. On 4/07/25 at 10:33 AM, during a resident council meeting, Resident #102…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview conducted during a recertification 4/6/25-4/11/25, the facility did not ensure that necessary assistance and care were provided to carry out activities of daily living for 1 of 10 Residents (Resident #81) reviewed for activities of daily living. Specifically, Resident #81 was not showered twice a week as per unit showering schedule. Findings include: Resident #81 had diagnoses including peripheral vascular angioplasty status with implants and graphs, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. The admission Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool) dated 3/10/25 documented Resident #81 was cognitively intact, did not reject cares and required partial/moderate assistance with showering. A Physician order dated 3/12/25 documented Resident #81 ambulated with assist of 1 using a rolling walker. An activities of daily living care plan, revised 3/6/25, documented Resident #81 required assistance with activities of daily living functions due to decreased/impaired mobility and required…
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 before2025-04-11 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey from 4/6/2025 to 4/11/2025, the facility did not ensure that needed services, care and equipment were provided to assure that residents with limited range of motion and mobility maintained or improved function based on the residents' clinical condition for one (1) of two (2) residents (Resident #18) reviewed for Position and Mobility. Specifically, Resident #18 with contracture of the right hand was observed on 3 occasions without the use of a right hand gauze roll as per physician order. Findings include: The policy and procedure titled Contractures Management with Splints, Braces, Orthotic Devices last reviewed 1/2024, documented every resident to be assessed for the presence of contractures or risk thereof. Therapy will issue an order for the supportive device to the nursing team with an outline of the devices wearing schedule. A plan of care will be implemented by the therapy department to manage a contracture or to support a…
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.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 4/6/25-4/11/25, the facility did not ensure residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #92) reviewed for Respiratory Care. Specifically, 1) Resident #92 was observed multiple times receiving oxygen at 5 liters and 3 liters via nasal cannula with a physician order for 2 liters. Resident #92 was also observed with an empty portable oxygen tank while resident sleeping with nasal cannula in place. The findings included: A facility policy (reviewed 1/25) titled, Respiratory Therapy Administration and Equipment, documented: verify that there is a physician's order/review the physician's orders for oxygen administration. Resident #92 diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and diabetes. A 5-day re-entry Minimum Data Set (assessment tool) dated 3/20/25 documented Resident #92 was cognitively intact, had shortness 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 · D2025-04-11 · 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 interview during the recertification survey from 4/6/2025 to 4/11/2025, the facility did not ensure residents who required dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products and excess fluid from the blood when the kidneys stop working properly) received services consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #439) reviewed for Dialysis. Specifically, there was no documented evidence of consistent assessment and oversight before, during and after dialysis treatment for Resident #439 who received hemodialysis treatments at a community-based dialysis center. The findings included: A facility policy titled Dialysis Policy and Procedure Manual (revised 12/1/24) documented: when resident returns from hemodialysis, nurse checks the communication book for any issues needing to be addressed. Documents in progress notes resident's condition upon return from dialysis. Resident #439 diagnoses included end stage renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and type 2 diabetes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview during a recertification survey from 4/6/25 to 4/11/25, the facility did not ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary medication, use for one (1) of five (5) residents (Resident #49) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, for Resident #49 Hydromorphone 2 mg every 4 hours as needed for pain of four - six was administered two times from March 1 2025-April 6 2025 for pain below four and Hydromorphone 4 mg every four hours for pain of seven -ten was administered four times from March 1 2025 - April 6 2025 for pain below seven. On 3/8/25 at 1:25 PM, 4/1/25 at 09:23 PM and 4/6/25 at 5:43 PM Hydromorphone 2 mg and 4 mg were administered together without a physician order. The findings include: Resident # 49 had diagnosis including Lupus, hypertension, morbid obesity. The care plan titled Pain initiated on 7/5/2024 documented administer pain medications as per orders. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 1/7/2025 documented Resident #49 was cognitively intact and received anti-anxiety medication and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 4/6/25 to 4/11/25, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 2 medication carts (East and South units) and the East unit medication room. Specifically, 1) the East Unit medication cart was left unlocked and unattended in the hallway while the nurse was in the medication room [ROOM NUMBER]) on the South Unit, a blister pack of Metformin 500 mg (13 pills) was left unattended on a medication cart while the nurse went into a resident room to administer medications and 3) the East Unit medication room had an expired medication and biologicals. The findings include: The policy titled, Medication Storage, last reviewed 1/25 documented medications will be stored in a manner that maintains the integrity of the product, ensures the safety of the residents and is in accordance with the Department of Health guidelines. All medications will be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that waste was disposed in a dumpster that was free of leaks and the dumpster area was maintained in a clean condition. Specifically, garbage debris was observed around the bottom perimeter of dumpster. The findings are: The undated policy titled Maintain Dumpster and Loading Dock Areas documented when emptying trash, Environmental and Dietary will pick up any spillage and close lids. It further documented that the Environmental manager will follow up after each trash run to ensure compliance. An observation of the kitchen area was conducted on 04/06/2025 at 4:47 PM. The Food Service Director (FSD) accompanied the surveyor to inspect the dumpster and the surrounding area. Garbage debris on the ground surrounding the dumpster. The Food Service Director stated the dumpster was emptied daily when they came to pick up garbage. Food Service Director stated when garbage company dumped the garbage into the truck, items often fell onto the ground and the garbage company did not pick…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey 4/6/25 to 4/11/25, the facility did not ensure that an ongoing review of antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use was completed for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for antibiotic stewardship. Specifically, for Residents #78 and #190, the facility was unable to provide an infection/antibiotic tracking report as requested on 4/10/25 that ensured their antibiotic program was implemented to monitor antibiotic use protocols when an antibiotic was prescribed to a resident. The findings are: The facility policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship Program revised 2022 documented it is the policy of Cedar Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center to comply with evidenced based guidelines or best practices regarding antibiotic prescribing and to promote rational and appropriate antibiotic therapy while improving clinical outcomes while minimizing unintentional side effects of antibiotic use, including toxicity and emergence of resistant organisms. Resident #78 had diagnoses including Type II Diabetes Mellitus,…
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 · E2024-06-12 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00343399, NY00332174, NY00337805), the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment including injuries of unknown source was reported in accordance with the Federal Law immediately, but no later than 24 hours after forming the suspicion, if the events that cause the suspicion do not result in serious bodily injury. Incidents were not reported by facility staff to the administration in a timely manner and the facility did not submit the results of all investigations to the New York State Department of Health within 5 working days in accordance with State Law for 3 out of 3 residents (Resident #1, #2, #3) reviewed for abuse. Specifically, (1) on 5/27/2024, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 reported they heard a voice saying, shut up from Resident #1's room and what sounded like a slapping sound, and Housekeeper #1 stated they heard Resident #1 crying in their room and someone saying stop, stop;…
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 · D2024-06-12 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00343399, NY00332174, NY00337805), the facility did not ensure the residents right to be free from abuse for 1 (Resident #3) out of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, on 4/1/2024 Certified Nurse Assistant #7 witnessed Resident #3 been bopped on the head by Certified Nurse Assistant #5 while in their wheelchair. The incident was not reported to the nursing supervisor or the administrator by the staff until Resident #3 reported the incident to the Medical Director of the Managed Long Term Care during a visit on 4/2/2024, that they were left in the shower for a longtime wearing their adult brief and that Certified Nurse Assistant #5 bopped them on their head using their knuckles because they would not follow their commands. Findings include: The facility abuse policy documented each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. Residents must not be subject to abuse by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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 observation, interviews and record review during a recertification survey 1/17/24-1/25/24, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a dignified existence for 1 resident (#73) observed during dining observation. Specifically, staff were observed standing over Resident #73 while feeding the resident their meal. Additionally, Resident #73 was assisted with their lunch meal while other residents at the same table were not provided their lunch meal in a timely manner, Findings include: Resident # 73 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses and conditions including but not limited to unspecified dementia, schizophrenia and dysphagia. The 2/17/23 Comprehensive care plan for Activities of Daily Living documented the resident required assistance of (1) staff to eat. The 9/9/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of 1 staff with eating. During an observation on 01/17/24 at 11:52 Resident #73 received the lunch tray at the table. Resident #73 finished lunch and the tray…
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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 interviews and record reviews conducted during recertification survey and abbreviated survey (NY 00322838) conducted from 1/17/24-1/25/24 it was determined that for one (Resident #181) of nine residents reviewed for notification of change, the facility did not notify the resident's representative timely with a change in condition after a fall. Specifically, Resident #181 fell in their bathroom and had pain, but their representative was not notified until two hours later when the representative went to the facility to take the resident to an appointment. The findings are: The facility policy titled Notification of Resident/Responsible Party dated 1/23, documented the resident/responsible party will be informed of any changes in the resident's condition and staff will notify the residents responsible party immediately of any incidents (falls, etc) regardless of what time this has occurred. Resident #181 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, alcoholic cirrhosis,…
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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted from 1/17/24 to 1/25/24 the facility did not ensure that a baseline care plan to address resident needs was developed and/or completed within 48 hours of resident admission for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #129). Specifically, the Baseline Care Plan for Resident #129 did not address the use of a foley catheter. The findings are: The facility policy titled Resident Assessment and Care Planning with revised date of 1/23 documented that for newly admitted residents, the facility would develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission. The resident or resident representative would receive a written summary of the baseline care plan that they would be able to understand. The MDS coordinator shall notify appropriate disciplines, resident and/or designated representatives as to the scheduled date of care plan review. Resident #129 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Secondary Malignant Neoplasm of Bladder, Secondary Malignant Neoplasm of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-25 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews during the recertification survey on 1/17/2024-1/25/2024, the facility did not ensure that needed services, care and equipment were provided to assure that a resident with limited range of motion and mobility maintained or improved function based on the resident's clinical condition for two of six residents (Residents #11 and #32) reviewed for range of motion. Specifically, Resident #11 was not provided with left resting hand splint device, and Resident # 32 was not provided with bilateral booties or a right handroll as ordered by the physician to prevent further contractures. Findings include: A review of the Policy & Procedure titled Contracture Management dated 1/23 documented It is the policy to implement plan of treatment of contractures or risk thereof with supportive devices. 1) Resident #32 had diagnoses including hemiplegia (weakness) following a stroke, anemia, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool dated 12/30/2023 documented the resident's cognition 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on interview and record review conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated Survey (NY00300194) from 1/17/24 to 1/25/24, the facility did not ensure adequate supervision was provided and that the residents environment remained as free of accidents hazards as possible for 1 of 9 residents (Residents #184) reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident #184, who required supervision for ambulation with a rolling walker, exited the facility through the front door on 8/27/22 at approximately 10:00 PM independently and undetected by staff, fell and sustained an excoriation to the right elbow with bleeding. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure, 'Missing Residents' updated 1/11/2019 included documentation to provide a secure and safe setting in which residents may reach full mobility potential while remaining in a protective environment, facility staff will be in-serviced as to Cedar Manor Policy and will be made aware of individual residents who tend to wander and ambulate without particular direction. There is no documentation regarding the requirement 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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure 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, interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 1/17/24 to 1/25/24, the facility did not ensure that irregularities identified by the pharmacist and forwarded to the facility were acted upon for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 82) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, Resident #82's aspirin was not discontinued as per consultant pharmacist and nurse practitioner agreement. The finding is: The facility's Policy and Procedure for Drug Regimen Review dated 10/23 documented: The drug regimen of each resident must be reviewed at least once a month by a licensed pharmacist Finding and recommendations are reported to the director of nursing, the attending physician, and medical director. Resident # 82 diagnosis included, delusional disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and metabolic encephalopathy. The 11/15/23 Quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS) documented the resident had severely impaired cognition. The 11/10/23 Drug Regimen Review documented; Beer's criteria recommend discontinuing Aspirin. Staff #10 (Nurse Practitioner) documented 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-01-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 observations, record review and interviews during a recertification survey 1/17/24-1/25/24, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility did not effectively implement accurate tracking and monitoring of infections and outbreaks among residents and staff on the East Unit, staff did not use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) correctly in an isolation room. Findings include: Review of the facility's Pandemic Planning and Operational Protocol, dated 8/10/23, documented advanced preparation and planning was undertaken to mitigate the effects of a pandemic. The plan included activation of an outbreak monitoring log so that case identification information and the course of spread could be tracked. The facility operational protocol also documented 6 feet social distancing strategies…
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 · D2024-01-25 · 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 observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY00329325) conducted 1/17/2024-1/26/2024, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 of 9 residents (Resident #183 & #12) reviewed for accidents. Specifically, 1. Resident # 183 did not have an orthopedic follow up as per the hospital discharge summary within the recommended 2-3 week time period and 2. treatment for Resident # 12 was delayed due to the doctor not being updated with observations of possible fracture during reassessment. The findings include: Resident #183 had diagnosis including but not limited to displaced trimalleolar (fracture of right lower leg, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing), unspecified heart failure, and atrial fibrillation The 10/10/2023 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) an assessment tool documented Resident #183 was cognitively intact, was dependent for other activities of daily living and did not have a surgical wound. The 10/06/2023 Hospital…
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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0836 — isolatedEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY 0032772) from 1/17/24 to 1/25/24, it was determined that the facility did not operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable state and local laws, regulations, and codes including notification of termination of a service vital to the health and safety of the community. Specifically, the facility is not accepting sharps for disposal from the community despite the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency having ended on May 11, 2023. The findings are: The New York State Department of Health Guidelines for Hospital and Nursing Home Sharps Collection and Safe Disposal programs included documentation that under New York State law, hospitals and nursing facilities are required to accept household sharps. Section 1389-dd (4) of the New York State (NYS) Public Health Law indicates that sharps including needles, syringes and lancets, originating from a private residence, may be delivered for disposal to a general hospital or a residential health care facility . and must be accepted by…
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 before2020-11-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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, record reviews and interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey, it could not be ensured that the facility did not ensure that care was provided in a manner to maintain dignity for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #56) reviewed for dignity. Specifically, Resident #56's urinary (Foley) catheter tubing and drainage collection bag were not concealed to maintain dignity and privacy. The findings are: Review of the undated policy and procedure titled, Urinary Continence/Incontinence/Catheters showed that holders are to be utilized to conceal urinary drainage bags from public view. The policy specifically directs staff to conceal standard drainage bags larger than a leg bag, which are designed to hang under wheelchairs, geri chairs and from bed rails. Resident #56 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, Hypertension, and Diabetes Mellitus. The 9/29/2020 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS; a resident assessment tool) indicated that Resident #56 had an…
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 · D2020-11-20 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
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 interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification survey, it could not be ensured that the facility, as a fiduciary (trustee) of the resident's funds, safeguarded, managed, and accounted for residents' personal funds deposited with the facility for 1 of 1 (Residents #58) resident reviewed for personal funds. Specifically, the facility did not honor the resident's request to access personal funds. The findings are: Review of an undated facility policy and procedure titled, Residents Personal Bank Accounts documented that residents are to have access to up to $50.00 in cash on the same day of the request. The policy also stated that requested resident monies can be obtained at the facility's reception desk 7 days per week. Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Heart Failure, Atrial Fibrillation, and Anxiety Disorder. Review of the 10/6/2020 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS; a resident assessment tool) indicated that Resident #58 was cognitively…
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 · D2020-11-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews and interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey, it could not be ensured that the facility reviewed and revised the Care Plan (CP) for nutrition to address an unplanned weight loss for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for nutrition. Specifically, no new interventions were initiated to address the resident's continued unplanned weight loss. The findings are: Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia and Low Back Pain. Review of the 9/3/2020 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS; a resident assessment tool) showed that Resident #30 was cognitively impaired, received supervision for eating, had no weight loss and no tooth issues. Review of the 8/24/2020 Physician's Orders indicated that Resident #30 was to receive a regular diet with thin consistency fluids. Furthermore, Resident #30 was to have a speech/language screening/evaluation and should receive treatment as indicated. Review of the facility's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-11-20 · tag F0710 — isolatedObtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's care.
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 reviews and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, it could not be ensured that the facility provided timely medical supervision for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for nutrition. Specifically, the Physician and/or the Nurse Practitioner (NP) were unaware of and therefore did not address the resident's unplanned significant weight loss. The findings are: Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia, and Low Back Pain. The 9/3/2020 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS; a resident assessment tool) indicated that Resident #30 was cognitively impaired, received supervision for eating, had no weight loss and no dental issues. Review of the 8/24/2020 Physician's Orders indicated that Resident #30 was to receive a regular diet with thin consistency fluids. Furthermore, Resident #30 was to have a speech/language screening/evaluation and should receive treatment as indicated. Review of the facility's undated…
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEDAR MANOR HOLDING I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 01/21/2016 |
| ZBL CEDAR MANOR LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 01/21/2016 |
| FARKAS, ZIPPORAH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 17% | since 01/21/2016 |
| JOZEFOVIC, HERBERT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 17% | since 01/21/2016 |
| SCHLANGER, JOSEPH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | 17% | since 01/21/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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 335185. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-11, 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.