Canterbury Woods
725 Renaissance Drive, Williamsville, NY 14221 · Non profit - Church related · 50 certified beds · (716) 929-5800 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 (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jan 2025
- 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 (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 18.3% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.7% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.8% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.8% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.2% | 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 | 7.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.0% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 33.3% | 13.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.3% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.9% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.6% | 19.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.9% | 13.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.7% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.93 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.10 | 1.36 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
48.0% 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 38 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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 | 48.0%CMS range 34.4–63.8 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 6.9–18.6 | 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 | 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 — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.65 | 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 50 beds and averages 41.1 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.48 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.70 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.69 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 3.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.71 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% 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.
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-08 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00362317) completed on an Extended Recertification survey with an exit date of 1/8/2025, the facility failed to protect the residents rights to be free from verbal and physical abuse by a Companion Aide for one (Resident #22) of six residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, a Companion Aide was witnessed by facility staff being verbally and physically abusive towards Resident #22. The facility did not review/revise abuse processes/protocols since 2016. In addition, the facility did not consistently implement their protocols regarding Companion Aides. They did not have an effective system to ensure background checks were verified as completed for all Companion Aides prior to starting at the nursing home; lacked an effective system to communicate with the residents/families, and Companion Aides the nursing home policy included Companion Aides were not to provide hands on care; lacked a system to monitor Companion Aides to ensure their specific policies were followed to ensure…
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 · D2025-01-08 · 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 a Complaint investigation (Complaint #NY00362317) completed on an Extended Recertification survey with an exit date of 1/8/2025, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, and mistreatment, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse to the administrator and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for one (Resident #22) of six reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not report to the State Agency allegations of abuse within the two-hour required time frame. In addition, the facilities abuse reporting protocols have not been reviewed/revised since 2016. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Abuse Reporting revised 11/28/16 documented the Director of Nursing and Administrator will be called and notified…
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 · D2025-01-08 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Extended Recertification survey completed on 1/8/25, the facility did not ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers (ulcers on the skin due to prolong pressure) received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, and prevent infection for one (Resident #13) of one resident reviewed. Specifically, there were lack of consistent weekly pressure ulcer assessments and ongoing monitoring for Resident #13's left heel and left buttock pressure ulcers, the assessments did not consistently include staging, measurements of size (length x width x depth), or a description of the wounds. Additionally, the assessments had conflicting documentation of treatment instructions and wound measurements for the pressure ulcers. The finding is: The undated facility policy titled Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Treatment documented that a complete wound assessment and documentation will be done upon initial finding then weekly on all pressure ulcers until they are healed or…
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 · D2025-01-08 · 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 an Extended Recertification Survey completed 1/8/25, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and a comfortable environment, to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (Residents #13) of one resident reviewed. Specifically, enhanced barrier precautions (interventions designed to reduce transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms including gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities) were not initiated for a resident with pressure ulcers and staff did not wear appropriate personal protective equipment during pressure ulcer care. The finding is: The policy titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated 5/2024, documented enhanced barrier precautions are used as an infection prevention and control intervention to reduce the spread of multi-drug resistant organisms to residents. Enhanced barrier precautions employed targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care…
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 · E2023-06-02 · 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 interview and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 6/2/23, 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 for four (Employees A, B, D, and F) of six agency employees reviewed who were hired in the last four months and were subject to the New York State Nurse Aide Registry. Specifically, the facility did not ensure prospective employees were screened through the New York State Nurse Aide Registry prior to their employment. This affected two (North Unit and [NAME] Unit) of two resident units. The findings are: 1a. Review of the personnel file for Employee (A) (Agency Licensed Practical Nurse, (LPN)) revealed Employee (A) was hired on 5/15/23 and the New York State Nurse Aide Registry Verification Report for Employee (A) was dated 6/1/23. Review of Nursing Assignment Sheets revealed Employee (A) had worked at the facility for three days between 5/20/23 through 6/1/23. Additionally, the Nursing…
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 · E2023-06-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed 6/2/23, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, one of one main kitchen had issues with multiple food items in the walk-in coolers and a reach-in cooler that had been removed from the original (mother) container or had been opened and were not dated with the date opened. The reach-in freezer in the kitchen had loose French fries, onion rings and many crumbs of debris on the bottom. In addition, one of one servery, [NAME] #1 was observed serving food without changing gloves during the entire meal service. The findings are: The policy and procedure (P&P) titled Food and Cleaning Supply Storage with the revision date of 11/19/22 documented on the third day of any prepared food, the item will be disposed of or used. Gallon containers (i.e., dressings, mayonnaise, etc.) must be labeled on opening date and disposed on the tenth day. Predated items with an expiration date on package, need…
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 · D2021-12-30 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Standard survey completed on 12/30/21, the facility did not ensure that a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL's) receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition for one (Resident #29) of two residents observed for ADL's. Specifically, Resident #29 with a history of pneumonia (lung infection) and weight loss was not provided with extensive assist with eating at meals as required per their plan of care. The finding is: The policy and procedure (P&P) titled POC Charting and ADLs (undated) defined an extensive assist as resident helps/use muscle and one assist as one staff to help support ADL. 1. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of oropharyngeal dysphagia (difficulty initiating swallow), idiopathic aseptic necrosis of foot (tissue death due to lack of blood supply), and chronic constipation. The Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool) dated 11/30/21 documented Resident…
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 · C2025-01-08 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 and interviews conducted during the Extended Recertification survey completed on 1/8/25, the facility did not ensure the nursing staff information was posted daily and contained the required information for three of five days reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not post daily the current resident census, the total number, and the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. The finding is: The policy titled Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers dated 2/03, documented the facility will post on a daily basis for each shift, the number of nursing personnel responsible for providing direct care to residents. Additionally, within two hours of the beginning of each shift, the number of licensed nurses and the number of unlicensed nursing personnel directly responsible for resident care will be posted in a prominent location (accessible to residents and visitors) 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.
- No harm found · B2021-12-30 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure 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 observation, interview, and record review during the Standard survey completed on 12/30/21, the facility did not ensure that each resident received, and the facility provided food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor and appearance, and food that was palatable. Specifically, for six of six residents reviewed for pureed food preparation, the recipe for the pureed lunch meal on 12/29/21 was not followed and it affected the nutritive value, flavor, appearance, and palatability of the food. The finding is: According to the facility's undated document titled, Puree Consistency Diet, the puree diet provides a nutritionally adequate diet for the resident with difficulty in swallowing, pureed foods are altered to form a consistency between liquid and soft, and care should be taken to serve pureed food in a colorful, attractive manner. Review of the recipe provided by the Executive Chef titled, Pureed Vegetable Recipe revealed it included the following steps: blix (brand of food maker/blender) cooked vegetables for one and a half minutes, add hot liquid until…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BELTER, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2022 |
| CARBALLADA, GREGORY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2015 |
| FREDERICK, RHONDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2022 |
| HUNT, LAURA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2022 |
| MOHNEY, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2015 |
| ROSSI, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2023 |
| SAVATTIERI, SARAH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2025 |
| SPETH, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/06/1995 |
| VASQUEZ, FRANCISCO | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2023 |
| WORRALL, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| JULIANO, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2007 |
| WALLACE, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2007 |
| EPISCOPAL CHURCH HOME AND AFFILIATES, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/06/1995 |
| ANDERSON, KARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/23/2024 |
| ANDRYSIAK, SABRINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/28/2013 |
| BARILLARI, SANDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/07/2019 |
| BERTHIAUME, BRIDGITTE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/04/2022 |
| BODKIN, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2013 |
| CONGI, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/05/2021 |
| DEMARCO, ISADORE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/12/2008 |
| KOTRIDES, ALEXANDER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/02/2022 |
| WILSON, PAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/07/2022 |
| BONADIO & CO LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/02/2015 |
| BRIMS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2018 |
| CCRC ACTUARIES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2001 |
| ECH&A SERVICES ORGANIZATION, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/01/2025 |
| ERIE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/29/2025 |
| PROCYON ADVISORS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/21/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 44 rows in the source record cover these 28 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.
7 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335816. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-08, 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.