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

Unity Living Center

89 Genesee Street, Rochester, NY 14611 · Non profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (585) 368-3881 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 immediate-jeopardy citation$12,868 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
  • the CMS record shows $12,868 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-25)
  • its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • 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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Urgent care / clinic
65 Genesee St · (585) 368-3531 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
89 Genesee St · (585) 368-3928 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
423 Jefferson Ave · (585) 471-5023 · Call to confirm hours
Park
17 Madison St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
134 Genesee St

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 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 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 3 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 rating3★
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 increased7.7%14.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight12.0%5.8%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.1%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.7%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%19.5%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.8%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened7.8%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication7.3%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine90.7%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers8.6%6.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control15.0%19.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table17.0%13.7%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine75.5%78.8%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission14.3%20.6%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit2.8%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days3.051.701.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.031.361.80better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

§ 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.

9.6%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.29U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.13hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 46% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.6%CMS range 6.7–15.010.7%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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 worsened3.6%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 hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.071.02Oct 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

0.50
RN hours/ resident / day
1.41
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.18
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.08
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.30
RN hoursweekends
29.4%
Total nursing turnover
18.8%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 116.8 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 4.08 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.50 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.18 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 3.67 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.25 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.58 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% is below 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 (2024-07-25)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2022-09-09)

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.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-07-25 · 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 reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 7/19/24-7/25/24, the facility did not ensure they established and maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for six (Residents #6, #26, #66, #87, #92, and #100) of seven residents reviewed for infection control on the facility's ventilator unit. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a blood glucose monitoring device (a device used to obtain a blood sample to check blood sugar levels) was cleaned and disinfected between each use for Residents #6, #26, and #87. Additionally, staff did not wear the posted and required personal protective equipment for Residents #6, #26, #66, #92, and #100. Additionally, a nursing staff member mixed medications for Resident #66 with their gloved finger. Subsequently, facility staff members did not follow…

    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 · E2025-05-15 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00352620), the facility did not ensure resident records were complete, accurately documented, accessible, and systematically organized in accordance with professional standards of practice for three (3) (Residents #1, #2 and #4) of three (3) residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility could not provide documented evidence that wound treatments were administered as ordered, and documentation did not include who provided the treatments or when the treatments were completed. The findings include: The facility's policy Skin Inspection and Care, dated June 2024, documented that nursing staff were to perform and document weekly skin assessments for each resident. Nursing staff were to document changes in wound condition and new wounds under a lines, drains, and airways avatar as well as in a skin assessment flowsheet within the electronic medical record and were responsible for adding wound care to the daily work list in the electronic…

    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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews, observations, and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey from 7/19/24-7/25/24, for two (Residents #20 and #93) of three residents reviewed for medication administration, the facility did not ensure that each resident was free from significant medication errors. Specifically, several significant medications were not administered to both Resident #20 and Resident #93 due to not being available. This is evidenced by the following: The facility's policy Medication Administration dated August 2021, documented the facility shall properly administer and store all medications. Medications are administered following a valid order entered in the Electronic Medical Record which links to the Medication Administration Record. 1. Resident #20 had diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, seizure disorder, and hypertension (high blood pressure). Resident #20's current physician orders included Lasix (diuretic or water pill) 20 milligrams once daily and Topamax (anti-seizure medication) 250 milligrams every 12 hours. Review of the July…

    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 · D2024-07-25 · 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 review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 7/19/24-7/25/24, for one of four residential units (3300 unit), the facility did not provide for safe and secured medications in accordance with currently accepted professional standards. Specially, there were multiple loose unpackaged and unlabeled pills and expired medications observed in two medication carts on the 3300 Unit. The Medication Administration Policy, dated February 2020, included that the facility shall properly store all medications. All medications must remain in secure storage until administered to the patient. During an observation and interview on 7/22/24 at 12:22 PM on the 3300 resident care unit, the team one hall medication cart contained 25 loose unlabeled pills (different shapes and colors) in the medication drawers. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they thought some of the pills were senna (stool softener) but was unable to identify any of the other loose pills. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they did not know who was responsible for cleaning 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 · E2022-09-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey, completed on 9/9/22, it was determined that for 3 of 29 residents reviewed for care planning, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person- centered care plan that included measurable objectives to meet all the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs as identified in their comprehensive assessments. Specifically, Resident #18's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) did not include goals, interventions and desired outcomes related to dementia with behaviors, depression or that the resident had a seizure disorder. Resident # 81's CCP did not address nutrition and hydration needs related to end stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis, and Resident #94's CCP did not include goals and interventions related to visitors providing personal care for the resident who was on transmission-based precautions for multiple infections. This was evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #18 had diagnoses that included vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances,…

    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 · D2022-09-09 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 conducting during the Recertification Survey from 8/31/22 to 9/9/22, it was determined that for one (Resident #81) of five residents reviewed for nutrition, the facility did not ensure that the resident's daily fluid intake met their needs as ordered by the physician. Specifically, the physician ordered fluid restriction was not being consistently monitored or documented. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy, Encouraging or Restricting Fluids, dated 10/28/19, instructed staff to verify if there was a physician's order for this and to review the resident's care plan and/or the daily assignment sheet to assess for any special needs. The General Guidelines included: To follow specific instructions concerning fluid intake or restrictions concerning fluid intake. Record fluid intake accurately. Record fluid intake in cubic centimeters (cc). Encourage the resident to follow specific instructions. Maintain intake and output in the resident's…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-09-09 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey, completed 9/9/22 it was determined that for one (Resident #13) of three residents observed during medication pass, the facility did not ensure that it was free of medication error rate of 5 percent (%) or greater. There were 4 medication errors for 28 opportunities resulting in a 14.3 % medication error rate. The issue involved administering three medications at the wrong time and not administering one medication that the nurse signed out as administered. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #13 had diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and gastric ulcer. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 5/16/22, documented that the resident had moderate impairment of cognitive function. Current physician orders included but not limited to, the following medications: a. Novolog insulin 14 units sq (subcutaneous injection) three times daily before meals and scheduled for 7:30 a.m. b. Toprol-XL 24 hour extended release 25 milligrams (mg) daily for hypertension and scheduled for…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-09-09 · 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 observation, interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from [DATE] to [DATE], it was determined that for one (Resident #94) of 29 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, the facility did not ensure that visitors of a resident on transmission-based precautions, due to multiple communicable (contagious) infections, practiced appropriate infection control prevention. This was evidenced by the following: The current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines for Transmission-Based Guidelines includes under Contact Precautions: everyone should use personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately including gloves and gown. Wear a gown and gloves for all interactions that may involve contact with the patient or the patient's environment.…

    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 · D2020-02-26 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
    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 # 93) of one resident reviewed for grievances, the facility did not make prompt efforts to resolve a grievance. Specifically, the resident's Health Care Proxy voiced concerns about staff members that were not investigated in a timely manner. This is evidenced by the following: Resident #93 has diagnosis including anoxic brain injury, heart failure, and has a tracheotomy. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 1/21/20, revealed that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired, the resident was non-verbal (absence of spoken words), and dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. When interviewed on 2/19/20 at 11:14 a.m., the resident's Health Care Proxy (HCP) said they had reported to the Nurse Manager and the Social Worker that the resident only cries when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 cares for the resident. The HCP said that CNA #2 made an inappropriate remark about the resident's medical diagnoses, which…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2020-02-26 · tag F0655 — isolated
    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 interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for 4 (Residents #11, #33, #72 and #115) of 14 residents reviewed for Baseline Care Plans, the facility did not have documented evidence that a Baseline Care Plan was developed within 48 hours of admission. This is evidenced by, but not limited, to the following: The facility policy and procedure, Baseline Care Plan Policy for Long Term Care, effective January 2018, revealed that upon admission, the facility will begin the process of developing a Baseline Care Plan which will be completed within 48 hours. 1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, osteoarthritis, and neurogenic bladder. When interviewed on 2/24/20 at 4:27 p.m., the Administrator stated that they were unable to locate a completed Baseline Care Plan for the resident. 2. Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease requiring…

    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
  • No harm found · B2022-09-09 · tag F0625 — pattern
    Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 9/9/22, it was determined that for two (Resident #38 and #58) of two residents reviewed for hospitalizations, the facility did not ensure a written notification, which specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy, was provided to the resident and/or the resident representative at the time of transfer to the hospital. Specifically, Resident #38 and Resident #58 were transferred to the hospital and the facility could not provide evidence that a written notice of information regarding the facility's bed-hold policy was provided to the residents' or the resident's representatives at the time of transfer or soon after per the regulation. This was evidenced by the following: The facility policy, 'Bed Hold Policy', reviewed/revised December 2019, included that at the time of each transfer for hospitalization or therapeutic leave, the facility would provide a written notice of the bed-hold policy. 1. Resident #38 was admitted…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

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

$12,868 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $12,868 — penalty dated 2024-07-25

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.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to ROCHESTER REGIONAL HEALTH — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 54.2-1.2 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 53.6-1.6 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 53.8+0.2 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.6+0.4 vs chain
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
HOLDER, NICHOLEIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 01/01/2021
HOYT, SHAWNIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/14/2021
ADONIS, RACHELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
ALAG, KARANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/25/2019
BECKER, LINDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
COONEY-MINER, DIANNEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/28/2019
DESTEPHANO, RALPHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
FERRIS, NANCYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
GALLINA, KARENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
GLASTONBURY, HOWARDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/01/2020
HOUSEKNECHT, THOMASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 12/07/2016
LYNCH, ANNAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
MAPSTONE, JEFFREYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
MEYERS, DANIELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
MULCONRY, MARCYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/25/2019
NUCCITELLI, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
OLIVIERI, LEONARDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
PATTON, ELIZABETHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
RIEDMAN, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 12/07/2016
RIEDY, DAWNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/28/2019
RILEY, THOMASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
RIVERA, EFRAINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 12/07/2016
SANDA, ROBERTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
SAWYKO, LEONIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
SMITH, JUSTINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2014
TEDESCO, JULIAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/28/2019
CRILLY, THOMASIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2010

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — 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.

$14.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-7.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.6M
Related-party expense10% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 51%Medicare 0%Other / private 49%

This home reported $1.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$360per resident / day
operating cost
$10,953per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$336per 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 335620. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-25, 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