Adira At Riverside Rehabilitation and Nursing

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

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.

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.

47.7% 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 282 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 77.1% 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 157 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 0.64 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 90% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 114.5 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 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 4.24 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.17 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.50 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.80 to 1.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 25% is below 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.

24 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 12 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · Gcited before2025-10-17 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview conducted during the abbreviated survey (2581942), the facility failed to ensure all residents were free of accident hazards and that each resident received assistance to prevent falls for one (1) (Resident #1) of three (3) residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident #1 sustained a head injury after a fall from their bed on 08/05/2025. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that was not Immediate Jeopardy.Findings include: The policy titled 'Fall Prevention Program' issued 03/28/2021 and reviewed 05/30/2025 documented all residents, by virtue of age, illness/injury and placement, are considered to be at risk for falls. A falls risk assessment will be completed on admission and quarterly to identify specific risk and develop an individualized care plan. The policy titled 'Turn and Positioning in Bed: Proper Technique' effective 01/28/2020 and reviewed 05/29/2025 documented the procedure of turning a resident to side lying position. The procedure included…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Actual harm · Gcited before2024-08-30 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide 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 interview, observation and record review during a Recertification Survey conducted from 8/26/2024 through 8/30/2024, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers and to prevent the development of pressure ulcers unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates they were unavoidable. This was evident for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #24). Specifically, Resident #24 was assessed as high risk for pressure ulcers and was identified to have left heel redness on 08/24/2024. The resident's care plan and interventions were not promptly updated and implemented to prevent further deterioration of the left heel skin integrity. Subsequently, on 8/29/2024, the resident's left heel was observed and assessed by the facility nurse practitioner and diagnosed to be an unstageable decubitus (damage to a person's skin caused by constant pressure on an area for a long-time) ulcer. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #24 that is not Immediate Jeopardy. 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
  Provide 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 abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure residents received quality care for two (2) (Residents #1 and #6) of five (5) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, 1) Resident #6 was ordered to receive wound treatment more frequently than recommended by the wound care specialist, 2) wound care specialist findings and recommendations for Resident #1 were not accurately transcribed and signs of worsening infection were not thoroughly reviewed and addressed.The findings are:1) Resident #6 had diagnoses of chronic respiratory failure with ventilator dependence and cerebral infarction.The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired and totally dependent on staff to perform activities of daily living. Resident #6 had three unhealed pressure ulcers present on admission to the facility and one unhealed facility-acquired pressure ulcer.The Nursing Note dated 03/23/2026…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-14 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — pattern
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  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, the facility did not ensure residents with pressure ulcers received treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing in two (Residents #1 and #3) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, there was no documented evidence Resident #1's treatment plan was revised to address stagnant wound progress and serosanguinous ulcer drainage for multiple weeks, and 2) Resident #3 was admitted to the facility at risk for skin breakdown and there was no documented evidence they received devices and repositioning to prevent the development of six new pressure injuries.The findings are:The facility policy titled Pressure Ulcer Policy dated 08/30/2024 documented each resident will be assessed for risk factors on admission and for four consecutive weeks. Care plans will be developed with specific interventions based…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-04-14 · tag F0711 — pattern
  Ensure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
  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, the facility did not ensure the physician reviewed the resident's total program of care, including medications and treatments, at each visit for two (Residents #6 and #1) of four ventilator-dependent residents sampled. Specifically, 1) discrepancies in the wound specialist's and the attending physician's ordered treatments were not addressed during physician visits, and 2) there was no evidence the attending physician reviewed labs reporting increasingly abnormal values and wound notes reporting stagnant, unhealing wounds with ongoing drainage.The findings are:1) Resident #6 had diagnoses of chronic respiratory failure with ventilator dependence and cerebral infarction.Resident #6's facesheet documented the Pulmonologist was the resident's Attending Physician.The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired and totally dependent on staff to perform activities 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.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-04-14 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
  Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
  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, the facility did not ensure services provided by the facility met professional standards of quality for two (Residents #1 and #6) of five residents sampled for pressure ulcer review. Specifically, 1) Wound Care Nurse #2 transcribed treatment orders received from the Wound care Physician for Resident #6 to occur more frequently than recommended 2) Wound Care Nurse #2 made changes to treatment orders for Resident #1 that were not recommended by the wound care specialist.The findings are:1) Resident #6 had diagnoses of chronic respiratory failure with ventilator dependence and cerebral infarction.The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired and totally dependent on staff to perform activities of daily living. Resident #6 had three unhealed pressure ulcers present on admission to the facility and one unhealed facility-acquired pressure ulcer.The Nursing Note 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure infection prevention and control standards were maintained during wound care to prevent the spread of infection to other wounds for 1 (Resident #6) of 2 residents observed for wound care. Specifically, Resident #6's uncovered back and buttock wounds were observed having direct contact with a towel soaked with purulent drainage from soiled dressings removed from the resident's infected right buttock ulcer. The findings are:Resident #6 had diagnoses of chronic respiratory failure with ventilator dependence and cerebral infarction.The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #6 was severely cognitively impaired and totally dependent on staff to perform activities of daily living. Resident #6 had three unhealed pressure ulcers present on admission to the facility and one unhealed facility-acquired pressure ulcer.Physician Orders transcribed dated 03/23/2026 documented…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-08-30 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — pattern
  Provide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 8/26/24 through 8/30/24 the facility did not ensure that sufficient nursing staff was consistently provided to meet the needs of residents on all shifts. Specifically, 1) multiple residents reported during interviews and the Resident Council Group meeting that the facility was short staffed at times, and this resulted in call bells not being answered timely and residents not getting out of bed; 2) several nursing staff members reported a lack of sufficient staffing; and 3) an analysis of the actual staffing schedule showed that on multiple occasions from 7/25/24 to 8/25/24, the facility was below the minimum levels documented on the Facility Assessment. Findings include: During a Resident Council meeting on 8/27/24, several residents stated that the facility was short staffed at times, especially on various shifts or on weekends. Residents stated that the call lights ring for a while before someone answers them; and some stated they had to stay in bed when they did not want to stay in…

  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.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-08-30 · tag F0730 — pattern
  Observe each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on staff interview and review of facility records during the recertification survey from 8/26/24 through 8/30/24, the facility did not ensure Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) performance reviews were completed at least once every 12 months. Specifically, eight of eight randomly selected certified nurse aides (CNAs) (#3, #6, #14, #16, #17, #18, #19 and #20) did not have a performance review documented at least once every 12 months. Findings include: The Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) (#3, #6, #14, # 16, #17, #18, #19 and #20) last performance evaluations were not available. Review of Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) (#3, #6, #14, #16, #17, #18, #19 and #20) hire dates, provided by the facility, revealed all eight of the certified nurse aides had been working at the facility for more than one year, their hire dates ranges from 2002 through 2021. When interviewed on 8/29/24 at 8:49 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #3 stated they could not recall when they had a performance evaluation done. When interviewed on 8/29/24 at 8:52 AM, Registered Nurse Unit Supervisor #1 stated they were…

  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.

  Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-08-30 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record reviews and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated survey (NY00325832) from 8/26/24 to 8/30/24 , the facility did not ensure that a resident's representative was promptly notified of a change in ins status For 1 of 28 residents (Resident #38) reviewed for notification of change. Specifically, Resident #38's designated representative was not made aware the resident had pneumonia and antibiotic was initiated. The findings are: Resident #38 had diagnoses including pneumonia, chronic respiratory failure and dementia. The 8/2/23 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (resident assessment tool) documented the resident had severely impaired cognition and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. The 2/25/22 Policy and Procedure titled Notification of Change documented the facility will promptly inform the resident representative when there is a change of condition requiring notification. The 10/8/23 chest x-ray results documents left basilar lung infiltrate (pneumonia). The 10/8/23 physician order documented Cefuroxime (antibiotic) one tablet by…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-08-30 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop 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 record review and interviews, during the recertification survey from 8/25/24 to 8/30/24, the facility did not ensure that the Comprehensive Care Plans were reviewed and revised in a timely manner to reflect the resident's changing needs and current status as evidenced by 1 of 4 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for skin impairments. Specifically, Resident #24 acquired a pressure injury on the left heel and the care plan was not updated with goals and interventions to promote wound healing. The findings are: Resident #24 had diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and a history of pressure injuries. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 7/15/2024 documented Resident # 24 had severe cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for chair/bed-to-chair transfers and required substantial to maximal assistance for bed mobility and sitting on the side of the bed. Resident #24 was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, was at risk for pressure ulcers, had no pressure ulcers/other skin problems (ulcers, wounds), had a pressure…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-08-30 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
  Provide 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interviews during the recertification survey from 8/26/24-8/30/24, the facility did not ensure that needed services, care and equipment were provided to assure that residents with limited range of motion and mobility maintained or improved function based on the resident's clinical condition for 3 of 3 residents (Residents # 24, #54 and #91) reviewed for position and mobility. Specifically, Residents #24, #54, and #91 were care planned for hand rolls and were observed on multiple occasions without their hand rolls. Findings include: The 2/14/22 policy and Procedure Titled Splints and Bracing documented Splinting and Bracing are provided on order by the resident's primary physician or by the facility Medical Director. The purpose was to improve function and help restore or maintain range of motion. 1. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

$66,859 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $66,859 — penalty dated 2024-08-30

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $3.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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