Woodside Manor Nursing Home Inc
2425 Clinton Avenue South, Rochester, NY 14618 · For profit - Individual · 44 certified beds · (585) 461-0370 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (62%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.2% | 14.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.5% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.6% | 3.1% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.4% | 12.5% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.5% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.4% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.3% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 22.2% | 13.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.8% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
* 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.52 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not 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 SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not 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 discharge | not 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 discharge | not 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 identified | not 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not 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 discharge | not 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 stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not 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 SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 44 beds and averages 41.0 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.88 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.31 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 3.38 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.08 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 62% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 08/25/2025 to 08/29/2025, for one (1) of one (1) main kitchen, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, raw shell eggs and raw chicken were not stored in a sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination, temperature controlled for safety (potentially hazardous) foods were not hot-held for service at 140 degrees Fahrenheit ( ) or above, thermometers were not stored in a sanitary solution, there was a severely dented can of food, condensation was dripping onto a food container from a hole in a reach-in cooler, and food items were undated and unlabeled. The findings are:Record review of the facility policy titled food storage, dated January 2008, revealed the policy included the following:All food products must be stored, labeled, and dated appropriately by the department procedure to prevent spoilage and possibility of food borne illnesses.Items will be placed in the refrigerator and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-29 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 from 08/25/2025 to 08/29/2025, for one (1) (Resident #48) of one (1) resident reviewed, the facility did not ensure the interdisciplinary team determined the Resident's right to self-administer medications was clinically appropriate. Specifically, Resident #48 was observed to have a bottle of antifungal powder at their bedside and the Resident stated they had been self-administering the medication. There were no medical orders in place for the powder, for the resident to self-administer or to keep medications at the bedside, and no comprehensive care plan was in place to address the self-administration of medications. This is evidenced by:Resident #48 had diagnoses including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a disorder that restricts air flow in the lungs), and heart failure. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool), dated 08/27/2025, documented the resident was cognitively intact. During an observation and interview on 08/27/2025 at 9:17 AM, a bottle of miconazole…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-29 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 a Recertification Survey from 08/25/2025 to 08/29/2025, for two (2) (Residents #25 and #30) of two (2) residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure the residents' right to privacy and the confidentiality of their personal and medical records was maintained. Specifically, a computer stationed in a hallway by a resident's room was observed open, exposing Resident #25's personal and medical information, and there were no staff members present to secure the information for nine (9) minutes and a computer was observed open, exposing Resident #30's personal information and medication administration record and there were no staff members present to secure the information for several minutes. The findings are:The facility Workstation Security Policy, dated September 2013, included a laptop computer qualified as a workstation, and all staff should lock their computer when left unattended for any period of time. 1. Resident #25 had diagnoses including…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-29 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 08/25/2025 to 08/29/2025, for one (1) (Residents #12) of one (1) resident reviewed, the facility did not ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene. Specifically, for multiple days, Resident #12 was observed with dark brown debris underneath their fingernails and was observed eating food with their hands. This is evidenced by the following:The facility policy Care of Finger and Toenails, dated October 2023, documented in part the purpose of this procedure is to clean the nail bed, keep nails trimmed, and prevent infections. Nail care is to be completed/offered on shower days and as needed. Nail care includes cleaning and regular trimming. Length of nails/trimming is based on resident preference. Resident #12 had diagnoses that included vascular dementia, anxiety, and depression. The Minimum Data Set (a resident assessment tool), dated 07/16/2025, documented the resident had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-29 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 08/25/2025 to 08/29/2025, for one (1) (Resident #4) of one (1) resident reviewed, the facility did not ensure a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing. Specifically, a nurse was observed performing wound care to Resident #4's right heel pressure ulcer, did not follow the medical orders in place for the wound treatment, and did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene in between removing the old dressing and applying the new dressing. This is evidenced by: Review of the facility Wound Care Policy and Procedure, last updated June 2022, included the person performing wound care should remove soiled gloves after removing an old dressing and put on a new pair of gloves before applying a new dressing according to the physician order. Resident #4 had diagnoses that included dementia, dysphagia (impaired ability to swallow), 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-29 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 08/25/2025 to 08/29/2025, for two (2) (Hallway A Medication Cart and Hallway B Medication Cart) of two (2) medication carts and one (1) of one (1) Medication Storage Room, the facility did not ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments in accordance with State and Federal laws and did not ensure an account of all controlled drugs was maintained. Specifically, medication carts were left unlocked and unattended on multiple occasions, medications stored on top of a medication cart were left unattended, and a narcotic log was missing several nurse signatures to verify the accuracy of the narcotic count at shift change. The findings are:Review of the facility Medication Storage Policy and Procedure, last revised May 2023, included all medications will be stored within a locked medication room, cart, boxes, or refrigerators, and the handoff/sign off of keys will be conducted between each shift. Review of the facility policy Medication Administration, last revised…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 08/25/2025 to 08/29/2025, for one (1) (Resident #4) of two (2) 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 diseases and infections. Specifically, a nurse was observed removing an old dressing from a wound and applied a clean dressing without changing gloves. Additionally, staff was observed handling soiled and potentially contaminated laundry wearing gloves and no gown to protect clean laundry from potential contamination and themselves from potential exposure. The findings are:The facility Wound Care Policy and Procedure, dated June 2022, included wounds should be treated and cared for in a manner which prevents infection, gloves should be removed and hand hygiene performed after removing an old dressing, and new gloves should be applied before applying a new dressing. The State…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-13 · tag F0563 — failed to protect the right to visitors — isolatedHonor the resident's right to receive visitors of his or her choosing, at the time of his or her choosing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/22, the facility did not ensure that for two (Resident #7 and Resident # 10) of two residents reviewed, each resident had the right to receive visitors of their choosing at the time of their choosing and in a manner that does not impose on other residents. Specifically, the facility had posted visiting hours, limited the number of visitors per resident, and required advanced scheduling of visitors. This is evidenced by the following: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued QSO-20-39 NH, revised on 3/10/22, documented facilities must allow indoor visitation at all times and for all residents as permitted under the regulations. While previously acceptable during the Public Health Emergency, facilities can no longer limit the frequency and length of visits for residents, the number of visitors, or require advance scheduling of visits. Additionally, the document included that facilities may ask about a visitors' vaccination status, however, visitors are not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/22, it was determined that for one (Resident #32) of five residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure that residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition. Specifically, Resident #32 did not receive the assistance with eating per their Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). This is evidenced by the following: Resident #32 had diagnoses including vascular dementia, dysphagia, and left-hand arthritis. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 6/15/22, documented that the resident had severely impaired cognition and required supervision and one-person physical assist for eating. The current CCP and the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) [NAME] (drives daily care) for eating revealed Resident #32 required assistance with feeding, and staff were to alternate liquids and solids, cut up food into bite size pieces, and assist with finger…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-13 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 the Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/22, it was determined that for one (Residents #7) of 37 residents reviewed for food allergies and one (Resident #15) of one resident reviewed for preferences, the facility did not ensure that food was provided that accommodated resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences. Specifically, Resident #7's lunch tray that was ready to be served prior to Surveyor intervention, contained seafood that Resident #7 had a noted allergy to, and Resident #15 was not care planned for or offered a diet specified by their religious preference. The findings are: 1.Resident #7 had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, muscle weakness, and Type 2 diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #7 was cognitively intact and required supervision and set-up help for eating. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) last reviewed 7/7/22, documented that Resident #7 was at risk for allergic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during a Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (#NY00282014), completed on 7/13/22, it was determined that the facility did not establish and consistently maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. Specifically, for one (Resident #19) of two residents reviewed for wound care the facility staff did not complete appropriate hand hygiene and glove changes to maintain a clean environment, for one (Resident #27) of two residents reviewed for urinary catheters (catheter inserted directly into the bladder to drain urine into a drainage bag) staff did not ensure the catheter tubing and drainage bag did not touch the ground or was positioned properly to avoid infections, and for one of one glucose monitoring observations staff did not disinfect a glucometer (machine used for testing blood glucose) after use and prior to storing with clean supplies. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #19 had diagnoses that included peripheral…
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.
- No harm found · B2022-07-13 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/22, it was determined that for one (first floor) of one resident use floors and one of one kitchen, the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Specifically, an exhaust ventilation system was not working, ceiling tiles were damaged, a baseboard heater was dented, urine odors were consistently present in a shared bathroom, the interior of multiple hot liquid mugs were heavily stained, and a kitchen light fixture was lacking a cover. The findings are: 1. Observations on 7/7/22 from 9:37 a.m. to 12:37 p.m. included: a) One-half of a ceiling tile in the shared bathroom between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] was broken off. b) The baseboard heater located by the entrance door to room [ROOM NUMBER] was damaged with a large dent. c) There was an approximately one-inch hole in a ceiling tile in the housekeeping closet located across from…
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.
- No harm found · B2022-07-13 · tag F0625 — patternNotify 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
Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/22, it was determined that for two (Resident #20 and Resident #3) of two residents reviewed, 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. This is evidenced by the following: The undated facility 'Short-Term admission Agreement' form documented that the resident had the right to be fully informed, verbally and in writing, at the time of admission and again at the time of transfer from the facility for any reason, of the facility's bed hold/bed reservation policy. 1. Resident #20 had diagnoses including pancreatic cancer, Cerebral Vascular Accident (stroke), and gastral intestinal bleed. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 5/12/22, documented that Resident #20 was cognitively intact. Review of the Notice of Transfer/Discharge Letters, dated 5/26/22 and 5/31/22, revealed that Resident #20 was transferred…
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.
- No harm found · B2022-07-13 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 7/13/22, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the daily posting of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care was up to date and accurately reflected the required data at the beginning of each shift. Specifically, the facility staffing sheets were not updated daily and/or reflected changes in the schedule. This was evidenced by the following: Observation on 7/7/22 at 10:03 a.m., revealed that the posted nursing staffing sheet was dated 6/30/22. Observation on 7/12/22 at 11:08 a.m., revealed that the posted nursing staffing sheet was dated 7/11/22. A review of the facility's Daily Staffing Sheets (contained names and hours of nursing staff working each shift, including shifts 'open' or not yet filled yet) provided by the facility, dated 6/2/22 to 7/11/22, and the posted nursing staffing sheets did not match and did not include the changes in the actual schedule on multiple days. During an interview on 7/12/22 at 11:12 a.m.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to HURLBUT CARE — 13 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, 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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CURLETTA, MARK | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| HURLBUT, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2007 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 2 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.
About 73% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $462K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335366. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-29, 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.