Seneca Hill Manor INC
20 Manor Drive, Oswego, NY 13126 · Non profit - Other · 120 certified beds · (315) 349-5300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 25.2% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.5% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.1% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.7% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.3% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.2% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.1% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.1% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.8% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.4% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.7% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.6% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.7% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.19 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.73 | 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.
57.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 361 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 78.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 161 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 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 57.8%CMS range 52.3–62.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.2%CMS range 9.6–15.9 | 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 | 78.3% | 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 | 73.3% | 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 | 76.4% | 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 | 90.9% | 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 | 86.1% | 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 | 99.0% | 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 | 1.0% | 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 | 2.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 4.5–9.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 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 120 beds and averages 108.1 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 12 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.97 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-14 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to report timely, verbal and physical abuse for one (1) of three (3) residents (Residents #1) reviewed, resulting in the alleged perpetrator having continued access to residents. Specifically, on 04/02/2026 at approximately 5:30 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #2 alleged they witnessed Certified Nurse Aide #1 handling and speaking to Resident #1 roughly during care. On 04/02/2026, Certified Nurse Aide #1 continued to have access to residents and worked until the end of their shift at 10:00 PM. Certified Nurse Aide #2 did not report the incident until 04/03/2026 at approximately 2:30 PM. Resident #1 was not assessed until 04/03/2026 at approximately 8:00 PM. Findings include: The 05/2023 facility policy, Resident Abuse documented in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility must ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source or misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not more than two (2) hours…
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 · D2024-10-09 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 10/3/2024-10/9/2024, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 3 of 4 residents (Residents #25, #53, and #86) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #86 was not provided timely toileting assistance; Resident #53 was not provided nail care, facial hair care, or a weekly shower as planned; and Resident #25 was not provided their offloading boots (used to lessen pressure on the feet) as planned. Findings include: The facility policy, Positioning of the Resident, revised 10/12/2023, documented all residents who could not independently position themselves would be positioned by nursing staff to reduce risk for development of pressure areas; heels would be elevated and offloaded with a pillow, or booties as ordered when lying in bed; and positioning systems included heel protectors. The facility policy, Toileting Schedule for Residents, revised…
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 · D2024-10-09 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 10/3/2024-10/9/2024, the facility did not ensure performance reviews for certified nurse aides were completed at least once every 12 months for 2 of 2 Certified Nurse Aides (Certified Nurse Aides #1 and #2) reviewed. Specifically, Certified Nurse Aides #1 and #2 did not have performance evaluations documented at least once every 12 months. Findings included: The facility Certified Nurse Aide job description dated 6/11/2020, documented the certified nurse aide reported to the Nurse Manager and was responsible for providing individual and comprehensive resident care in accordance with and under the supervision of licensed personnel. Personnel files for Certified Nurse Aides #1 and #2 did not include documented evidence of performance evaluations completed at least once every 12 months. During an interview on 10/8/2024 at 1:34 PM, Certified Nurse Aide #11 stated they had been employed by the facility for 2 years and never had a performance evaluation. They thought they were supposed to be completed…
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 · D2023-11-09 · 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 interview during the abbreviated Survey (NY00310806), the facility did not implement a person-centered care plan with measurable objectives, time frames, and appropriate interventions for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1 was identified at risk for falls and no fall prevention interventions were included on their care plan. The resident was left unattended in the bathroom and was found on the floor with a minor injury. Findings include: The Comprehensive Resident-Centered Care Plan Policy, revised 7/2022, documented: - the interim/baseline care plan will be developed within 48 hours of admission, including any specialized services. - The Resident Care Profile (RCP) will be developed, will support the resident plan of care, and will be placed in each resident's closet door for review by all licensed and non-licensed staff, including but not limited to certified nurse aides (CNA). - Care plan meetings will be held, and resident care plans will be updated to reflect pertinent changes and/or updates in resident care status. -…
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 · D2023-11-09 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview during the abbreviated survey (NY00326356), the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #2). Specifically, Resident #2 was admitted to the facility with a cholecystostomy tube (tube that drains fluid from the gallbladder) and there was no documentation: - a treatment was ordered to the cholecystostomy insertion site until the surgical provider ordered one 13 days after admission. - Parameters were specified for cholecystostomy drainage to determine when the medical provider should be notified of inadequate drainage. - The resident was assessed after the cholecystostomy tube was removed to determine if a treatment order was needed at the insertion site. - A plan of care was implemented to monitor the resident after the tube removal. Findings include: The 4/2020 facility's Biliary (bile, bodily fluid that aides in digestion) Drain Care Policy documented the purpose of the policy was to instruct nursing staff on how to care for biliary…
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 · D2022-10-04 · tag F0813 — isolatedHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review during the recertification survey conducted 9/29/22-10/4/22, the facility failed to ensure staff were educated on the policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption for 3 of 3 resident units (Units 1, 2, and 3). Specifically, facility staff were not aware of the policy to properly reheat resident food brought from outside the facility and did not have access to an internal probe thermometer to properly measure food temperatures after reheating. Finding include: The facility policy Resident Food Prepared Outside the Facility dated 10/2016, documented family and/or friends were allowed to bring food /beverages prepared outside the facility to the facility for a resident's dining pleasure. If the food needed to be reheated, it must be reheated to a minimum of 165 degrees F (Fahrenheit). The kitchen would provide a thermometer to the dining room as needed. When interviewed on 10/3/22 at 12:19 PM, the Food Service Director stated…
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 · D2022-10-04 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 9/28/22-10/4/22, the facility failed to ensure each resident was offered influenza and pneumococcal immunizations and received education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the immunizations for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #39 and 16) reviewed. Specifically, there was no documented evidence Resident #39 was offered, declined, or educated on the pneumococcal immunization, or Resident #16 was offered, declined, or educated on the influenza immunization. Findings include: The undated facility policy Influenza-Pneumonia Vaccine Immunization Program documented residents would be provided with instruction and education relative to Influenza/Pneumovax (pneumococcal vaccine) and aspects of the facility vaccination program. All education provided would be documented on the Resident Consent/Declination Form and/or nurse's notes for validation. The undated facility policy Influenza: Prevention, Early Detection and Control documented all residents were to receive the influenza vaccine on an annual…
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 · D2020-01-16 · 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, record review and interview during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure each resident is treated with respect and dignity to promote maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #83 and #110) reviewed for dignity. Specifically, Residents #83 and #110 were not provided a dignified dining experience. Findings include: The facility policy Feeding the Dependent Resident dated 1/2014 documented any personnel assisting a resident should try to assume a seated position next to the resident and the manner of assisting should be unhurried. Personnel are responsible for feeding residents assigned to them as needed and it is the responsibility of the nurse to ask for assistance if they have more than one resident to feed. 1) Resident #83 was admitted with diagnoses including cerebral infarction and hemiplegia following a stroke. The 12/9/19 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition and required extensive assistance for eating. The January 2020 physician…
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 · D2020-01-16 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 residents had the right to be free from physical restraints not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #4) reviewed for restraints. Specifically, Resident #4 had a wheelchair seat belt in place without a physician order for a restraint, a current restraint assessment or parameters for use of the seat belt. Findings include: The facility policy Restraints revised 12/12/17 documented: The facility will try all alternative available interventions before applying a restraint to a resident. In the event a restraint is utilized, ongoing reassessment will be completed to ensure continued need for the restraint, and to ensure the restraint is the least- restrictive device appropriate for the resident. Determination regarding the initial need for the restraint will be completed by the interdisciplinary care plan team (IDCP) and will be reviewed quarterly, annually, and with all significant changes. Once the restraint decision has been made…
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 · D2020-01-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure it established and maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 5 of 11 residents (Residents #25, 45, 62, 100, and 313) observed for medication administration. Specifically, licensed practical nurses (LPNs) #1 and 2 were observed not performing hand hygiene between Residents #25, 45, 62, 100 and 313 during medication pass observations. Findings included: The facility policy Medication Administration Guidelines dated 11/16/17 does not include guidelines/instructions for hand hygiene during medication administration. The facility policy Hand Hygiene (undated) documented hand hygiene is the primary means of avoiding spreading of infection and should be completed before and after direct contact with a resident, after removing gloves, and after handling soiled dressings. During a medication administration…
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.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSWEGO HEALTH INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/10/1997 |
| BACKUS, MICHAEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| ALBERTS, ED | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2019 |
| AVERY, ATOM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/28/2013 |
| BARNHART, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2019 |
| BOZEMAN, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| CLARK, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/20/2011 |
| CULLINAN, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/20/2011 |
| DORSEY, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2019 |
| EGGERT, MARIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| FURLONG, VICTORIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| SARKAR, PALOMA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| TASCARELLA, RON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| TOOMEY, KATIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| TULL, DUANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| VANGORDER, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2013 |
| CAMPBELL, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/01/2016 |
| GAGAS, ADAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2013 |
| HOLST, ELLEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| SLAYTON, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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 $285K 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
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 335815. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-09, 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.