St. Ann's Community
920 Cherry Ridge Boulevard, Webster, NY 14580 · Non profit - Corporation · 72 certified beds · (585) 697-6800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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 (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2023
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 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 | 32.1% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.2% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 2.5% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| 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 | 2.9% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.0% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.2% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.4% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 33.4% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.2% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
* 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 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this 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 72 beds and averages 70.5 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.18 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.71 is at or above 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 3.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.30 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.63 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · 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 09/04/2025 to 09/10/2025, for one (1) (3200 Unit) of two (2) medication carts reviewed, the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were properly stored in accordance with State and Federal laws. Specifically, there were multiple pre-poured pills in six (6) unlabeled medication cups and all the pre-poured medications were signed off as given in the Medication Administration Record prior to administering them to the residents. The findings include:The facility policy Medication-Preparation and Administration, dated 06/02/2022, included medications may not be set up in advance, medications must be administered within one (1) hour before or after their prescribed time, and to document after medications are taken by the resident.During an observation and interview on 09/09/2025 at 9:10 AM, a medication cart (3200 Unit) had six (6) unlabeled medication cups with various pills in each cup. During an interview at that time, Licensed Practical Nurse #2 stated the cups contained…
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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0811 — isolatedEnsure that residents are assessed for appropriateness for a feeding assistant program, receive services as per their plan of care, and feeding assistants are trained and supervised.
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 09/04/2025 to 09/10/2025, for one (1) (Resident #34) of one (1) resident reviewed, the facility did not ensure feeding assistants had successfully completed a State-approved training course that meets the requirements before feeding residents and feeding assistants provided dining assistance only for residents who have no complicated feeding problems. Specifically, Resident #34 who had a diagnosis of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing food or liquids) was observed receiving assistance with their breakfast meal from a staff member who had not completed an approved paid feeding assistant training program. Additionally, Resident #34's care plan did not reflect the use of a feeding assistant and the staff member was not under the direct supervision of a licensed nurse. The findings include:An official communication issued by the New York State Department Health, Dear Administrator Letter #07-11 (Paid Feeding Assistants), dated 12/20/2007, included nursing homes are allowed to utilize…
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 · E2024-05-08 · tag F0655 — patternCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey, the facility did not ensure that newly admitted resident's and/or their representatives were provided with a written summary of a Baseline Care Plan that included the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for the immediate needs of the resident (including but not limited to initial goals, admission orders, dietary, therapy and social services) for 9 (Residents #2, #7, #31, #40, #53, #55, #56, #57 and #58) of 11 residents reviewed. Specifically for all residents identified the facility did not provide the resident or their representative with a summary of a Baseline Care Plan in a timely manner. This is evidenced by, but not limited to the following: The current facility policy, Care Planning-Interdisciplinary, dated 7/12/22, included a baseline care plan is initiated and completed with 48 hours of admission and developed before the comprehensive assessment. Prior to the scheduled care plan meeting a copy of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey, for one (Residents #2) of one resident reviewed the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, Resident #2 had several extended periods of time without a documented bowel movement, did not receive appropriate interventions to manage their bowel patterns, and did not have a comprehensive care plan in place to address a diagnosis of constipation. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy and procedure, Bowel Management, date 1/28/19 included that Nursing would monitor the bowel regimen where appropriate and establish a care plan to ensure the Elder (Resident) was having regular bowel patterns. The electronic documentation system bowel management report would be reviewed daily. If an Elder had no bowel movement after more than six shifts, the staff nurse should initiate the as needed bowel regimen as ordered or notify…
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 · D2024-05-08 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey and complaint investigation (#NY00327781), it was determined that for one (Resident #271) of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility did not ensure that the resident was free from significant medication errors. Specifically, Resident #271 received an incorrect dose of a medication for Parkinson's disease for an extended period of time, in a dose that exceeded the recommended maximum daily dose and not as recommeded by the specialist. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy and procedure, Internal and External Consults and Clinics, revised 7/25/22, included that any orders, reports, or notes received from an outside clinician upon return of the resident are given to nursing for review. The nursing team will read the note/recommendations and/or email the note/reconditions to the provider for review. The orders, notes, and reports are scanned into the medical record after being dated 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 · Dcited before2024-05-08 · 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, the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were properly stored in accordance with State and Federal Laws for one (third-floor resident unit) of two medication rooms reviewed. Specifically, numerous controlled medications (drugs that are regulated by law due to their potential for abuse or addiction), including narcotics and opioids were observed unsecured and not in a double locked cabinet per the regulations. This is evidenced by the following. The facility policy Medications-Storage, Distributions, Administration and Wasting of Controlled Substances, dated 4/11/22 documented that controlled substances must be stored, distributed, and administered in a safe, secure manner with total compliance with all legal and regulatory requirements. The narcotics supply is to be kept under two locks at all times, and all controlled substances are to be returned to the medication room narcotic cabinet and double-locked after a medication pass. During an observation and interviews on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 (Complaint # NY00323662) it was determined for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for abuse the facility did not ensure the resident was free from the use of verbal, mental, or physical abuse. Specifically, Resident #1 was slapped on the abdomen, yelled at, and observed having a finger pointed in their face in an intimidating manner by a staff member. This is evidenced by the following: The facility policy, Elder Abuse/Neglect/Mistreatment Policy, dated 7/22/23, defined abuse as inappropriate physical contact with an Elder of a residential health care facility, while the Elder is under the supervision of the facility, which harms or is likely to harm the Elder. Inappropriate physical contact includes, but is not limited to, striking the Elder. Additionally, verbal abuse could include a threat or physical action such as a threatening gesture or intimidation. Resident #1 had diagnoses including dementia with…
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 · E2022-08-29 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 8/29/22, it was determined that for two (Employees #2 and #4) of five employee files reviewed, the facility did not implement written policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property related to screening prospective employees. Specifically, a nurse aide registry (NAR) abuse screening was not completed prior to new employees beginning work. The findings are: On 8/26/22 from 10:30 a.m. to 11:55 a.m., documentation related to five recently hired employees was reviewed. The records included that employee #2 was hired as a Beauty Technician on 6/28/22. The documentation provided included a nurse aide registry abuse screening for employee #2 dated 3/8/21. Additionally, employee #4 was hired on 6/6/22 as a Care Partner and the NAR screening was dated 8/24/22. During an interview at this time, the Human Resources (HR) Manager stated that a NAR screening wasn't done originally for employee #4, and was done when the surveyors came in. During…
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 · E2022-08-29 · 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 observation and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey completed on 8/29/22, it was determined that the facility did not ensure that the environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible. Specifically, on six of six resident care units, hazardous chemicals were stored in unlocked rooms and accessible to 57 residents including many with dementia and/or wandering behaviors. This is evidenced by the following: Review of facility policy Storage and handling of toxic and potentially hazardous chemicals, medications and treatment procedures, dated 12/22/94 included that the policy statement was to insure the protection and safety of elders/patients, all toxic and potentially hazardous chemical, medications, and treatment products will be store in designated locked areas when not in direct use. Section A: Cleaning Supplies #3: Return the cleaning supplies to a locked cupboard, at no time are cleaning supplies to be left out where they could be assessable to elders/patients. Section B: Treatment Items #1: Obtain treatment item from locked treatment cart,…
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 · D2022-08-29 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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, completed on 8/29/22, it was determined that the facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for three of three residents reviewed. Specifically, Residents #3, #7, and #63 were observed on multiple days occupying wheelchairs with cracks, peeling material, and exposed padding. This is evidenced by: 1.Resident #7 had diagnoses including arthritis, osteoporosis, anxiety, and depression. The Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS), dated [DATE], documented that Resident #7 was cognitively intact and required the use of a wheelchair. The resident also required extensive assistance from staff for transfers. During and observation and interview on 8/24/22 at 9:22 a.m., Resident #7 was sitting in a wheelchair. The left arm fabric of the wheelchair was peeled off esposing the foam padding. Residnet #7 stated at this time that they had had the wheelchair for a quite awhile. During an observation…
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 · D2022-08-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 8/29/22, it was determined that for one (Resident #40) of one resident reviewed for position/mobility and one (Resident # 23) of one resident reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility did not review and revise the resident's care plan (with input from the resident or resident representative to the extent possible) to reflect the resident's current needs. Specifically, Resident #40's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was not revised to reflect the discontinued use of hand splints and washcloths for hand contractures and Resident #23's CCP did not reflect the history of and current presence and treatment of existing pressure ulcer. This was evidenced by the following: The facility policy, Care Planning-Interdisciplinary, revised 7/12/22, included that the Care Plan was reviewed and updated with any change in status (minimally, quarterly). 1.Resident #40 had diagnoses including dementia, contractures of left and right hand, and anxiety. The Minimum Data Set Assessment, 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.
“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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADAMS, DANIEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/20/2019 |
| BURKE, PATRICK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/21/2022 |
| HAYES, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/28/2018 |
| INDIANO, CARMEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/29/2017 |
| LYNCH, ANNA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/25/2015 |
| MARRO, NICOLE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/24/2024 |
| MITCHELL, MARY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/24/2024 |
| MORRIS, LUCAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/24/2024 |
| RISSONE, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/20/2019 |
| RYAN, CHERYL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/26/2014 |
| SALLUZZO, RONALD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/30/2016 |
| SALLUZZO, STEPHEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/19/2025 |
| SCHAUSEIL, DEBORAH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/29/2017 |
| SCHNELL, JAMES | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/26/2025 |
| SCHRADER, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/31/2020 |
| SIMS, ANGELA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/26/2023 |
| SOCOLA, JASON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/26/2025 |
| TAI, MAZIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/26/2025 |
| TEHAN, THOMAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/26/2025 |
| VANDER HORST, RICHARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/26/2023 |
| WESLEY, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/31/2020 |
| WIEFLING, BRIDGETTE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/31/2020 |
| BOURG, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2010 |
| BROWN, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/27/2023 |
| MCRAE, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2010 |
| BARNES, RENE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/22/2016 |
| PETRONE, KIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/09/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 55 rows in the source record cover these 27 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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 335730. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-10, 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.