No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

St. Ann's Community

1500 Portland Avenue, Rochester, NY 14621 · Non profit - Other · 470 certified beds · (585) 697-6000 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (585) 697-6000 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citations — no harm found (F0607, F0610) — most recent Sep 20221 actual-harm citation$55,495 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • the CMS record shows $55,495 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-07)
  • its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
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

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
(585) 922-5840 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1415 Portland Ave Ste 125 · (585) 922-3970 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
999 E Ridge Rd · (585) 342-3803 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Letchworth State Park · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
1400 Portland Ave

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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased31.9%14.1%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.9%5.8%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.8%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.4%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.8%19.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury5.6%3.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened23.3%12.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication11.1%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine84.9%95.3%95.3%worse
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.5%6.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control31.1%19.5%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table14.7%13.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.3%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine23.8%78.8%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission13.0%20.6%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit4.9%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.641.701.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.201.361.80better

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.

51.1% 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 261 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

51.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
57.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.23U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 57.2% 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 145 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 29% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF51.1%CMS range 44.7–57.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.5%CMS range 6.7–12.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge57.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge43.5%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge59.3%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified90.8%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting95.2%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge91.2%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization4.7%CMS range 2.7–8.17.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.821.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.46
RN hours/ resident / day
1.08
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.44
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.98
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.23
RN hoursweekends
38.9%
Total nursing turnover
31.1%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 470 beds and averages 366.1 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 104 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.98 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.44 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.60 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.13 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-04-16)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2022-09-22)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2025-01-07 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Abbreviated Survey (NY00345886) for one (1) (Resident #3) of (3) three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (injury), the facility failed to ensure the resident received the necessary care, treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote the healing of a pressure ulcer, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing (unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates they were unavoidable). Specifically, Resident #3, who was assessed to be at risk for pressure ulcer development, was identified as having an open area on their left buttocks on 06/07/2024. A wound consult was ordered, but the medical team was not notified of the open area for five (5) days and there were no medical treatments ordered. Additionally, the resident's care plan, including interventions, was not updated and implemented promptly to prevent further deterioration of the pressure ulcer. Subsequently, Nurse Practitioner #5 identified deterioration to the pressure ulcer on the left buttocks 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-16 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey, for one (Resident #330) of one resident reviewed, the facility did not provide services to meet professional standards of quality.Specifically, multiple doses of a medication were left unattended at the resident's bedside with no assessment completed to ensure the safety of. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy, Patients on Self-Medication, dated 6/6/20, documented that medical and nursing staff determine if an elder is safe to self-administer medications using nursing admission assessment to identify if patient self-medicated at home. Medical staff orders self-medications based on this information. Elders on self-medication will have a secure area provided. Resident #330 had diagnosis including narrowing of the esophagus, mild cognitive impairment, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (stomach acid repeatedly flowing back into the esophagus). The Minimum Data Set Resident Assessment, dated 3/6/24, revealed Resident #330 was moderately impaired cognitively. Review 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-16 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey, for one (Resident #78) of two residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that appropriate treatment and services were provided to prevent urinary tract infections for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine). Specifically, Resident #78 was observed on several occasions with their uncovered urinary drainage bag (bag used to collect urine through the indwelling urinary catheter) lying directly on the floor including an observation of their urinary drainage bag resting on a dining room table above the level of their bladder with several staff within view. Additionally Resident #78's Comprehensive Care Plan did not include goals and/or interventions related to any resident behaviors related to their urinary catheter and/or urinary drainage bag. This is evidenced by the following: The current facility policy, Urinary Catheter Use and External Catheter Use Guidelines dated 7/12/22, included maintenance procedure of indwelling urinary…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey, for two (Residents #62 and #238) of four residents reviewed, 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 disease and infections. Specifically, there was a lack of appropriate hand hygiene (washing hands or using alcohol-based hand sanitizer) and lack of appropriate glove use observed during wound care for both residents. This is evidenced by the following. The facility policy, Precautions-Standard and Transmission Based of Infectious Organisms, revised 3/22/24, documented that gloves are to be worn at all times when delivering resident personal care, and when there is contact with blood, body fluids or mucous membranes. Wearing gloves does not replace the need for hand hygiene. Hand hygiene must be performed whenever gloves are removed.…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-09-22 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — pattern
    Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 9/22/22, it was determined that for three (Employees #1, #4 and #5) of five employee files reviewed, the facility did not implement written policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property related to screening prospective employees. Specifically, a nurse aide registry (NAR) abuse screening was not completed prior to new employees beginning work. The findings are: On 9/19/22 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:27 p.m., documentation related to five recently hired employees was reviewed. The records included: 1. Employee #1 was hired as an Environmental Services Assistant on 8/8/22. The documentation provided included a NAR abuse screening for employee #1 dated 8/24/22. Further record review included a fingerprinting consent form signed by employee #1 marked as having a final finding of patient or resident abuse. When interviewed via email regarding this statement by Employee #1, the Director of Human Resources stated that Employee #1 said this was 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2022-09-22 · tag F0655 — pattern
    Create 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 9/22/22, it was determined that for 7 (Residents #178, #187, #245, #247, #281, #298 or #357) of 35 residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that a Baseline Care Plan (BCP) was developed and implemented within 48 hours of admission that included the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the immediate needs of the resident and that a written summary of the care plan, that they were able to understand, was provided and reviewed with the resident and/or their representative in a timely manner per the regulations. This was evidenced by, but not limited to, the following: The facility policy Care Planning - Interdisciplinary, dated as last revised on 7/12/22, documented that the policy of the facility was to initiate and complete a BCP within 48 hours of admission and address, at a minimum, initial goals based on admission orders, dietary orders, therapy services, social services…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-09-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record reviews and interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (#NY00287538 and #NY00285375) completed 9/22/22, it was determined that for two (Residents #121 and #608) of seven residents reviewed for abuse, neglect and mistreatment, the facility did not ensure that the resident's environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible. Specifically, both resident's care plans were updated indicating a need for increased assist during transfers, but the change was not made on the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Resident Care Summary (care cards used by the CNAs for daily care) that were posted in the residents' rooms resulting in falls with injuries. The findings are: Facility policy # NSG-03, titled, 'care cards' (also known as Resident Care Summary), included: review care cards with CNAs that are floats, new to assignment, unit, or St. Ann's Community and when café plans have been changed. Interdisciplinary team will update care cards as needed. When plan of care is changed the care card is updated and distributed to designated…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-09-22 · tag F0836 — isolated
    Ensure 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 observations, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 9/22/22, it was determined that the facility did not ensure compliance with all applicable State codes. Specifically, the facility was not in compliance with section 915 of the 2015 edition of the International Fire Code as adopted by New York State, which requires the use of carbon monoxide detection in a building that has fuel-burning appliances. The findings are: During the initial tour of the ground floor kitchen on 9/15/22 between 8:53 a.m. and 9:40 a.m. it was observed that a natural gas range was present and in use, and there were no carbon monoxide detectors within the kitchen. Additionally, on 9/16/22 from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. it was observed that there were no carbon monoxide detectors present in the basement, ground floor, and lobby level of the 9-story St. Ann's Home. The basement was observed to include a potential carbon monoxide source in the boiler room. A summary of carbon monoxide detectors throughout the facility was sent to the surveyor via email by the…

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

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-01-07 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one resident (Resident #187) of three residents reviewed for abuse, the facility did not investigate a concern of rough handling during care that was reported to the nurse. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #187 has diagnoses including a stroke with hemiplegia (paralysis), hemiparesis (weakness), and osteoarthritis. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 11/18/19, revealed that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired, and the resident required the extensive assistance of two staff members for personal hygiene, bed mobility, bathing, and transfers. When interviewed on 1/2/20 at 8:52 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 said she works the day shift. She said the resident's family member had reported to her that there are some evening Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) that are rough with the resident during cares. LPN #1 said she did not report the concerns to a supervisor because she had not observed rough cares on her…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-01-07 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one of three residents reviewed for mobility, and one of six residents reviewed for activities of daily living, the facility did not ensure that each resident received appropriate treatment or services to improve or maintain ambulation. Specifically, Resident #187 was not walked consistently on a daily basis with the appropriate equipment, and Resident #254 was not walking independently on a daily basis and staff did not monitor or evaluate for a decline. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #187 has diagnoses including a stroke with hemiplegia (paralysis), hemiparesis (weakness), and repeated falls. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 11/18/19, revealed that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired. The resident required the extensive assist of one staff member to walk on and off the unit and had a functional limitation in range 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-01-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one (Resident #143) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care and oxygen, the facility did not provide proper care and treatment. Specifically, the resident's oxygen equipment was signed off as cleaned and changed weekly but was observed dirty and dated as last changed approximately a month earlier. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #143 had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary edema, and respiratory failure. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 11/6/19, revealed that the resident had moderately impaired cognition and received oxygen therapy. The current medical orders included oxygen at 3 liters via nasal cannula and directed to change, label, and date the oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle every week on the evening shift, check and refill the humidifier bottle every shift, check the concentrator filter and clean with sterile water if needed once a day on the evening shift. Observations conducted on 12/31/19…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-01-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for four of eight medication carts reviewed for medication storage, the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were properly labeled and stored in accordance with State and Federal laws. The issues involved a controlled substance that was not double locked, multiple unlabeled pre-poured medications, and multiple loose pills in the bottom of drawers in the medication carts. This is evidenced by the following: Home for the Aged: In an observation on 1/2/20 at 10:10 a.m., a medication cart on the third floor contained multiple loose pills in the bottom of the drawer. On 1/3/20 at 9:07 a.m., a medication cart on the sixth-floor contained several loose pills in the bottom of the drawer. Wegman's Continuing Center: In an observation on 1/3/20 at 10:24 a.m., the medication cart on the third floor contained two medication cups filled with multiple pills and one medication cup was filled with multiple crushed pills. The resident's name or the name of the…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-01-07 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that the facility did not ensure food was prepared in a form designed to meet each resident's needs. Specifically, the pureed lasagna was prepared without a recipe and the serving size was not equivalent to the regular portion size. This is evidenced by the following: When interviewed on 1/6/20 at 10:13 a.m., the Assistant [NAME] said that he pureed the lasagna entrée for lunch that day. He said that he needed 34 servings of 4 ounces each. He said that he did not follow a recipe but put the lasagna into the blender and added water to make it liquidy. He said he did not know how much water he added to the lasagna. He said the lasagna was a heat and serve purchased product and he used two half pans. The lasagna was Molly's Kitchen: 15 orders per half pan. The label read serving size one cup; 227 grams, servings per container about 12. When interviewed at that time on 1/6/20 at 10:18 a.m., the Chef said one pan equals 96 ounces divided by 12, so one serving should be 8…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$55,495 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $51,301 — penalty dated 2025-01-07
  • $4,194 — penalty dated 2023-08-28

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
ADAMS, DANIELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/20/2019
BURKE, PATRICKIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/21/2022
HAYES, JOHNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/28/2018
INDIANO, CARMENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/29/2017
LYNCH, ANNAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/24/2015
MARRO, NICOLEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/24/2024
MITCHELL, MARYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/24/2024
MORRIS, LUCASIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/24/2024
RISSONE, PATRICIAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/20/2019
RYAN, CHERYLIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/26/2014
SALLUZZO, RONALDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/30/2016
SALLUZZO, STEPHENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/19/2025
SCHAUSEIL, DEBORAHIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/29/2017
SCHNELL, JAMESIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/26/2025
SCHRADER, ROBERTIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/31/2020
SIMS, ANGELAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/26/2023
SOCOLA, JASONIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/26/2025
TAI, MAZIEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/26/2025
TEHAN, THOMASIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/26/2025
VANDER HORST, RICHARDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/26/2023
WESLEY, JOSEPHIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/31/2020
WIEFLING, BRIDGETTEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/31/2020
BOURG, ROBERTIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2001
BROWN, KEVINIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/27/2023
MCRAE, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2010
KUHN, KARIIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/10/2025
PETRONE, KIMIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/09/2018

CMS files one row per role, so the 55 rows in the source record cover these 27 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$56.7M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-29.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 68%Medicare 2%Other / private 30%

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

$552per resident / day
operating cost
$16,789per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$425per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in New York
$15,528/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$16,729/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,110/mo
Assisted living

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 335081. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-16, 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.

What to do next