Wedgewood Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
5 Church Street, Spencerport, NY 14559 · For profit - Partnership · 29 certified beds · (585) 352-4810 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 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 — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 fell from 3 to 2 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 | 15.0% | 14.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 1.7% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 13.7% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.7% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.0% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.8% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 34.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 0.0% | 9.6% | 12.0% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
* 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.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
44.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 53 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.77 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 44.1%CMS range 30.2–62.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 6.5–15.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 77.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 73.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 67.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 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 | 1.07 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 29 beds and averages 26.3 residents a day — about 91% 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 3.74 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.76 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 3.22 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.80 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
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.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-13 · 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, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (Intake ID: 2673831), the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 9 of 15 resident rooms (Rooms #11, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #21, #22, and #23) and one (1) of one (1) ventilation system. Specifically, there were damaged baseboard radiators, exhaust ventilation was not functional resulting in foul odors, boxes of supplies were stored outside in the snow, there was a damaged electrical outlet cover, and a bathroom faucet was corroded. The findings include: Observations on 02/09/2026 at 9:10 AM included approximately eight (8) boxes of Medline supplies setting on a wooden pallet, covered with snow outside the loading dock. Observations on 02/10/2026 at 9:22 AM included a wooden pallet outside the loading dock with multiple boxes of supplies with snow on top, including but not limited to:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — widespreadHonor 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, interviews, and record review conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Intake ID: 2656534, 2667467, and NY00382089/820392) completed on 12/04/2025, for one (1) of one (1) residential unit, the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, comfortable, and homelike environment. Specifically, there were heavy urine and bowel odors upon entering the facility and, in the hallways, floors were dirty and/or in disrepair, walls had missing paint, a hand soap dispenser was broken, two (2) apex (a device used to assist residents with standing) machines were dirty and had duct tape on the frames, and the dumbwaiter (a small freight elevator used for moving items, such as laundry and food) was dirty. Additionally, the shower room was in disrepair and bathing fixtures were not available for resident use at a ratio of 1 per 20 residents. The findings are:The facility policy Use of Dumbwaiter for Soiled Laundry and Food Transport dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-04 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Intake ID: 2621922 and 2626565) completed on 12/04/2025, for one (1) (Resident #3) of three (3) residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure each resident is treated with respect and dignity and cared for in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life. Specifically, Resident #3 was observed in the dining room for several hours with a strong odor of bowel incontinence while in the presence of other residents. Additionally, Resident #3 requested to go to their room and staff yelled at the resident in a loud, demeaning tone and multiple residents were observed in the dining room and hallways wearing hospital gowns. The findings include:The facility policy Quality of Life - Dignity dated August 2009 included each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect and individuality. Residents shall be treated with respect and dignity at all times and shall be encouraged and assisted to dress…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Intake ID: 2626565, NY00382613/820391) completed on 12/04/2025, for two (2) (Residents #3 and #8) 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. Specifically, for Resident #3 staff did not perform hand hygiene after assisting with incontinence care and prior to touching multiple surfaces and equipment. For Resident #8, the facility did not appropriately implement the use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP, an infection control strategy that uses gloves and gowns during high contact resident care to reduce the spread of infection) and there was an observation of staff not using personal protective equipment (PPE; equipment, such as gown and gloves, worn to protect individuals and reduce the risk of exposure…
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 · D2025-12-04 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (Intake ID: 2621922, 2656534, NY00382613/820391, and NY00384361/820393) completed on 12/04/2025, for one (1) (Resident #3) of nine (9) residents reviewed, the facility did not ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices. Specifically, Resident #3 was not checked or changed for extended periods, was observed in the dining room with a strong bowel odor for several hours and was later found with a saturated brief and non-disposable incontinence pad inside the brief, with redness noted to the buttocks. Furthermore, the facility did not revise Resident #3's care plan to address their chronic loose stools and increasing incontinence care needs, and staff documentation did not reflect care consistent with the resident's needs or the facility's required frequency of incontinence care.The findings include:The undated facility policy Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Supporting…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-03-15 · 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, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey it was determined that for five (rooms # 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19) of 15 resident rooms and one of one shower room, the facility did not provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Specifically, floor tiles were cracked and damaged, and hot water in a shower room was not maintained above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The findings are: The facility policy titled: 'Water Temperatures, Safety of' included that water heaters that service resident rooms, bathrooms, common areas, and tub/shower areas shall be set to temperatures of no more than 90°F (120 °C), or the maximum allowable temperature per state regulation. Observations on 3/11/24 at 9:32 AM included the floor tiles in resident rooms #12 and #15 had multiple chips and cracks throughout the room and at the door thresholds. In resident room [ROOM NUMBER] there were two approximately 12-inch by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for six (rooms #10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 19) of 15 resident rooms, the facility did not ensure that the resident environment remained free of accident hazards. Specifically, hot water temperatures exceeding 120 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) were accessible to residents at point of use locations. The findings are: The facility policy titled: 'Water Temperatures, Safety of' included that water heaters that service resident rooms, bathrooms, common areas, and tub/shower areas shall be set to temperatures of no more than 90°F (120 °C), or the maximum allowable temperature per state regulation. Observations on 3/11/24 at 9:44 AM included the in-line temperature gauge for outgoing water from the mixing valve located in the basement boiler room displayed a temperature of 130°F. During an interview at this time, the Director of Environmental Services stated that the hot water temperature should be 120°F or less, and that by the time the water gets to the unit it's usually lower.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey the facility did not ensure that appropriate treatment and services were provided to prevent urinary tract infections for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a drainage bag) for one (Resident #10) of one resident reviewed. Specifically, Resident #10 had a history of urinary tract infections and was observed on multiple occasions with the urinary catheter drainage bag, catheter drainage port, and catheter tubing lying directly on the floor in the resident's room and in the therapy room. The finding is: The policy and procedure, Foley Catheter Care/Suprapubic Catheter Care, dated 11/7/18 documented the purpose of the procedure was to prevent catheter associated urinary tract infections. Additionally, the urinary drainage bag must be held or positioned lower than the bladder at all times to prevent the urine in the tubing and drainage bag from flowing back into the bladder, use standard precautions (infection prevention practices…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-06-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews conducted during the Standard Recertification Survey completed on 6/17/22, it was determined that for one of one main kitchen, the facility did not store, prepare and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, there was a significant build-up of ice in a reach in freezer, sink plumbing was leaking, a freezer had a torn gasket, and a sink without an indirect drain was being used for food preparation. This is evidenced by the following: 1. Observations during the initial brief tour of the kitchen on 6/14/22 from 8:22 a.m. to approximately 9:22 a.m. revealed the following: a. A 'True' brand 2-door stand-up freezer had a significant accumulation of ice under the evaporator fans. b. The cold-water pipe for the single bay stainless steel prep sink was leaking, and this prep sink was covered with a metal plate. During an interview at this time the Food Service Director stated that they do not use the prep sink and acknowledged…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-04 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one of one main kitchen, the facility did not provide food that was palatable, attractive, or at an appetizing temperature. Specifically, the [NAME] did not follow the menu or the recipe for the main entrée of chicken and biscuits. This is evidenced by the following: The facility provided the lunch menu and recipe for the chicken and biscuits for lunch on 3/1/20. Make one pouch of chicken gravy, add one bag of cooked, diced chicken, and three cups of mixed vegetables and heat until 165 degrees Fahrenheit. Serve over a warm biscuit, split in half. The remaining items for the meal were capri blend vegetables, fruit cocktail, and banana cream pie for dessert. During an observation of the lunch meal on 3/1/20 at 12:34 p.m. and 1:05 p.m. in the main dining room, the residents had been served biscuits and diced chicken with no gravy or vegetables in the chicken and biscuit entrée. Seven of ten residents did not eat the chicken, and three residents said that the chicken was 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 before2020-03-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined for one of one main kitchen the facility did not store, distribute, or serve food under sanitary conditions. The issues included a defective rinse temperature gauge on the dish washing machine, frozen packages opened and undated, and items stored on the floor in the dry storage room. This is evidenced by the following: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 3/1/20 at 9:20 a.m., there were three racks of bread, three cases of paper and plastic plates, and two cases of V-8 juice stored on the floor in the dried storage room. There were opened and undated frozen items in the freezer including cubed chicken meat patties, hotdogs, cheese raviolis, and undated cooked bacon. In an observation at 12:00 p.m., the rinse temperature gauge was not working. The vendor work order, dated 10/18/19, revealed that the dish washing machine rinse temperature gauge was defective and needed to be replaced. The facility did not have a log that recorded the dish washing machine rinse temperatures. When…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2020-03-04 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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
Based on observations and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that the facility did not safeguard medical record information against loss, destruction or unauthorized use. Specifically, medical records were not secured. This is evidenced by the following: In observations throughout the day on 3/1/20 and 3/2/20, there were three unlocked file cabinets that contained medical records located in an area near the main entrance of the facility that was accessible to anyone. There were also medical records on top of the file cabinets and on the floor near the cabinets. Interviews conducted on 3/2/20 included the following: a. At 8:50 a.m., the Licensed Practical Nurse stated the filing cabinets have been stored in that entry way area for several months. She said the fire panel was alarming one day and several medical records were knocked all over the floor. b. At 8:53 a.m., the Administrator said the receptionist was responsible for the storage and maintenance of the medical records. He observed the stacks of medical records and unlocked file cabinets,…
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 · B2022-06-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 6/17/22, it was determined that 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: Resident #123 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including diabetes, hypertension and chronic pain. In a nursing progress note dated 4/29/22, the Registered Nurse documented that Resident #123 was confused and alert and oriented to name only. In a nursing progress note, dated 4/29/22 at 10:39 a.m., the Director of Nursing documented that Resident #123's blood glucose (bg) was consistently recording as high, that the Nurse Practitioner was notified and instructed to send Resident #123 to the hospital as the facility was unable to control the resident's bg. The resident was transferred to the hospital and did not return to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRINSPAN, ARYEH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 12/12/2017 |
| MAYER, ABRAHAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 12/12/2017 |
| MAYER, GIORGIO | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 75% | since 12/12/2017 |
| OMEGA BUSINESS SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/13/2023 |
| RF WEDGE PROPCO LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/12/2023 |
| SKURPSKI, FRANK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2026 |
| WETTENSTEIN, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| LICHT, TZVI | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/10/2025 |
| RUBIN, BAILA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/10/2025 |
| RUBIN, SHOSHANA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/10/2025 |
| FRIED, JOEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/12/2023 |
| GREEN, WOLF | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/12/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 335408. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-03-15, 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.