Wellsville Manor Care Center
4192a Bolivar Road, Wellsville, NY 14895 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (585) 593-4400 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 improved from 4 to 5 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 | 24.4% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.7% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.7% | 19.5% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.3% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.9% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.3% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.2% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.2% | 13.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.2% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.0% | 9.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.51 | 1.70 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.21 | 1.36 | 1.80 | worse |
§ 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.
43.8% 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 74 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.9% 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 70 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 0.06 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 3% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 49% 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 | 43.8%CMS range 32.8–54.5 | 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 7.4–14.9 | 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 | 62.9% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 57.1% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF 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 | 1.9% | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 3.2–11.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 120 beds and averages 117.7 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 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.33 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 2.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.96 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.84 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-14 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed on 6/14/24, the facility did not ensure each resident with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for one (Resident #58) of three residents reviewed for positioning and mobility. Specifically, the staff did not ensure that Resident #58's right hand splint was worn at all times as ordered and care planned. The finding is: The policy and procedures titled Assistive Devices and Equipment, revised on 1/2024, documented that devices and equipment that assist with resident mobility, safety and independence are provided for residents. These include but are not limited to wheelchairs (manual and powered), walkers, canes, adaptive devices etc. Recommendations for the use of devices and equipment are based on the comprehensive assessment and documented in the resident's plan of care. Resident #58 had diagnoses of cellulitis (a bacterial skin infection), urinary tract infection, and adult…
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 · D2024-06-14 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed 6/14/24, the facility did not employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service. Specifically, one of one facility reviewed for sufficient staffing did not have a full-time (working 35 or more hours a week) qualified Director of Food and Nutrition services or other clinically qualified nutrition professional. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Food and Nutrition Services revised 1/2024 did not include qualifications and skills sets for clinically qualified nutrition professionals. Review of the undated job description job title Nutrition Service Director revealed the candidate must provide documentation of registry/certificate upon application for the position, must have training in cost control, food management, and diet therapy. Review of the undated job description job title Diet Tech revealed the purpose of the job position is to oversee nutritional well-being of residents by conducting nutrition…
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 · D2024-06-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed 6/14/24, the facility did not ensure provision of a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, for one (Resident #307) of two residents reviewed for infection control practices during pressure ulcer care. Specifically, staff did not maintain proper hand hygiene during wound care and the resident was not on enhanced barrier precautions (infection control interventions including gown and glove use for high contact resident care activities designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms). The finding is: Review of the policy and procedure titled Hand Washing/hygiene dated 1/24 documented that all personal should follow the hand washing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, resident, and visitors. The use of alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water should be used for the following situations: before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze…
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 · D2024-05-09 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review conducted during an Abbreviated survey (Complaint #NY00338118) the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations including abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment were reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse, to the facility's Administrator and the State Survey Agency for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, facility staff did not report an allegation of abuse/mistreatment of a resident to the Director of Nursing or the Administrator which resulted in the alleged abuse not getting reported to the appropriate officials including the New York State Department of Health as required. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Abuse and Neglect last reviewed/revised: 4/2024 documented the Administrator and Director of Nursing will be immediately informed of any alleged or suspected occurrence of abuse or neglect. The Administrator or designee will provide a 2-hour notification to the New York State Department of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-22 · tag F0712 — isolatedEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
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 interview and record review completed during the Standard survey conducted 7/18/22 through 7/22/22, the facility did not ensure the providers made actual face to face contact with the residents at required visits for 3 of 9 residents (Resident #s 314, 55, and 82) reviewed. Specifically, provider visits were completed via telehealth (delivery of health care via remote technologies) and not in person (face to face) as required. The findings are: The policy and procedure (P&P) titled Provider Visits with a revised date of 1/22 documented the attending physician will visit residents in a timely fashion, consistent with applicable state and federal requirements, and depending on the individual's medical stability, recent and previous medical history, and the presence of medical conditions or problems that cannot be handled readily by phone. The P&P documented the NP (nurse practitioner) may preform required visits by state and federal regulations. Review of a hand written note provided by the Director of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-02 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop 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 interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 8/2/19, the facility did not implement written policies and procedures for screening employees that would prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property. Specifically, the facility did not provide documentation that verified four (Employees #4, 5, 6, 7) of eight employees who were subject to the New York State (NYS) Nurse Aide Registry had not been screened through the NYS Nurse Aide Registry prior to their employment. The findings are: Review of the facility policy titled Employee Files dated 11/2016, revealed all applicants, for all departments, must be screened through Prometric (outside contractor that maintains the NYS Nurse Aide Registry) to confirm if the person in question has ever worked as a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) and/or ever had any disciplinary actions enforced. A copy of the findings to be reviewed for status and placed in the permanent file. 1. Review of Employee #4's (Human Resources (HR) Coordinator) personnel file…
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 · D2019-08-02 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed 8/2/19, the facility did not ensure that residents who require dialysis receive such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident #46) of one resident reviewed for dialysis. Specifically, there was no collaboration between the facility and the dialysis center regarding removal of the dialysis dressing post dialysis. The finding is: Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Hemodialysis Documentation with a revision date 5/4/11 revealed under Shunt Care to monitor for bruit (whooshing sound of blood flow) and thrill (a buzzing vibration felt by palpitation) each shift and record in the Medication Administration Record/Treatment Administration Record (MAR/TAR), blood pressure (B/P) readings and blood specimens should not be drawn from the arm with the shunt. Between dialysis treatment, the skin over the internal AV (arteriovenous)…
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 · D2019-08-02 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 8/2/19, the facility did not ensure that residents who have not used anti-psychotropic drugs are not given these drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record and residents who use anti-psychotropic drugs receive gradual dose reductions (GDR) and behavioral interventions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort, to discontinue these drugs for one (Resident #75) of five residents reviewed for anti-psychotropic medications. Specifically, there was a lack of behavior documentation that warranted the administration of an antipsychotic medication (Abilify) and a lack of behavior documentation addressing the positive/negative effects of the antipsychotic on the resident. Additionally, there was a delay in acting upon recommendations for a GDR. The finding is: Review of a facility policy titled Antipsychotic Medication Policy dated 2/2018…
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 · C2024-06-14 · tag F0576 — widespreadEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews conducted during the Standard survey completed on 6/14/24, the facility did not assure the residents had the right to send and receive mail, and to receive letters, packages and other materials delivered to the facility for the resident through a means other than a postal service. Specifically, the facility did not ensure there was postal service available on Saturdays. This involved Resident #s 22, 30, 36, 44, 49, 82, 84, and 258. The finding is: On 6/11/24 at 10:13 AM, the Resident Council attendees (Resident #s 30, 36, 44, 49, 82, 84, and 258) stated they did not receive mail on Saturdays because they believed the facility didn't have staff available to deliver mail on Saturdays. During an interview on 6/12/24 at 10:51 AM, the Activities Department Director stated the United States Postal Service delivered mail to the facility Monday through Friday. They stated the Administrator set up the mail delivery for Monday through Friday only and stated they didn't know the residents should be able to receive mail on Saturdays. During a telephone interview on 6/12/24…
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 · B2024-06-14 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00312806) during the Standard survey completed on 6/14/24, the facility did not the facility did not make prompt efforts to resolve grievances for one (Resident #257) of three residents reviewed for grievances. Specifically, there was lack of follow through and resolution of a resident's report of missing property. The finding is: Review of a facility policy and procedure titled Resident Grievance, revised 1/2024 revealed that the Social Work Department will inform residents and/or designated representatives of their right to express grievances with the expectation of a response and without fear of reprisal. Each and all grievances will be investigated by the Department Head or their designee against which the complaint is made with cooperation and interventions from other disciplines when necessary. The Social Worker will document the complainant's satisfaction with findings and/or any actions taken by the facility. Review of Your Rights as a Nursing Home Resident in New York State 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.
- No harm found · B2022-07-22 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — patternHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 interview, observation and record review conducted during the Standard survey started on 7/18/22 and completed on 7/22/22, the facility did not ensure that it promoted and facilitated resident self-determination through the support of resident choice for three (Residents #49, 67, and 88) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, preferred number of showers per week were not obtained (#49), preferred wake up time was not obtained (#67), and showers were not provided in accordance with resident wishes' (#88). The findings are: The facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Accommodation of Resident's Needs revised 1/2022 documented the resident's individual needs and preferences shall be accommodated to the extent possible, except when the health and safety of the individual or other residents would be endangered. The resident's individual needs and preferences, including the need for adaptive devices and modifications to the physical environment, shall be evaluated upon admission and reviewed on an…
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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE MAYER FAMILY — 11 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 2.9 | +2.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 2.6 | +2.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESTATE OF ALAN LANDA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 17% | since 05/21/2024 |
| LUBA SCHULSINGER ESTATE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 06/21/2024 |
| EISIKOWICZ, SAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 35% | since 12/03/2009 |
| LANDA, STEVEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 17% | since 12/03/2009 |
| MAYER, ANDREA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 13% | since 12/03/2009 |
| MAYER, GIORGIO | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 13% | since 12/03/2009 |
| GEWIRTZ, ESTHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| GEWIRTZ, JONATHAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2007 |
| DINELLO, DAVID | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/09/2023 |
| MACCAULL, JUDSON | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/11/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.
About 82% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.
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 335661. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-06-14, 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.