172 Meadow Hill Road, Newburgh, NY 12550 · Orange County · (845) 564-1700
190 certified beds, about 184 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1976
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 335464 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 1, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the New York average is 8.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 30 health citations since May 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.38 hours per resident per day, against 3.63 across New York and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.45 of those hours.
25.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (New York average 40.3%).
CMS links it to Sapphire Care Group, an affiliated group of 8 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 30 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review during the Recertification survey from 3/26/2025 through 4/1/2025, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a dignified dining experience for 2 of 35 residents (Residents #2 and #113) reviewed for dignity while dining. Specifically, Certified Nurse Aides were observed standing over Resident #2 and Resident #113 while assisting with their meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 3/26/25 to 4/1/25, the facility did not ensure the Residents right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. This was evident for 1 of 35 resident rooms (Resident #10) and the hallways of 2 [NAME] Unit during observation of the environment. Specifically, Resident #10's room was observed with a strong odor of urine on multiple occasions and there was a strong odor of urine in hallways of 2 [NAME] unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the recertification survey from 3/26/2025-4/1/2025, the facility did not ensure that each resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary care and services to maintain good personal hygiene for 1 (Residents #90) of 5 residents reviewed for Activities of a Daily Living. Specifically, Resident #90, who required supervision with Activities of Daily Living, was observed during multiple observations with long, greasy hair, an unshaven face, and long, ungroomed fingernails.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey from 3/26/2025- 4/1/2025, the facility did not ensure that needed services, care, and equipment were provided to ensure that a resident with limited range of motion and mobility maintained or improved function based on the resident's clinical condition for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for position and mobility. Specifically, Resident #40 was observed three times without a left palm guard in place, as ordered by the physician, to prevent further contractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 3/26/2025 to 4/1/25, the facility did not ensure that 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #129) reviewed for Respiratory Care was provided with such care, consistent with the professional standards of practice. Specifically, Resident #129, had a physician's order for oxygen to be administered via nasal cannula at 2 liters per minute, and was observed with the oxygen rate not consistent with the physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey on 03/26/2025-04/01/2025, the facility did not ensure each staff was screened, offered the COVID-19 vaccine, and provided education regarding the benefits, risks, and potential side effects associated with for 2 of 10 staff reviewed for COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, there was no documented evidence of immunization records for Covid-19 vaccination for Certified Nurse Aide #1, and Certified Nurse Aide #2.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey from 03/26/2025 to 04/01/2025, the facility did not ensure Certified Nurse Aides were provided the required hours of training and/or annual in-services on dementia care management to ensure safe delivery of care. Specifically, the facility was unable to provide documentation that 3 of 5 Certified Nurse Aides (#23, #24, and #25), had the required hours of the mandatory training.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey from 3/26/25 to 4/1/25, the facility did not ensure an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection was maintained for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #129 and #118) reviewed for Infection Control. Specifically, 1) Licensed Practical Nurse #21 and Certified Nurse #21 were observed providing cares to Resident #129, on enhanced barrier precautions, without donning a gown. 2) Resident #118 had an indwelling urinary catheter and the drainage bag and a portion of the drainage tube were lying on the floor.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview during an abbreviated survey (NY00337556, NY00340055, NY00348324) the facility did not ensure a resident's right to be free from abuse for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) out of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, on 3/30/2024, Resident #2 was witnessed by 2 certified nurse assistants(Staff #6 and Staff #7) being fondled under their shirt by Resident #3. Resident #2 was removed from Resident #3's room and Resident #2's shirt was pulled down by the certified nurse assistant. 2) On 4/22/2024, Resident #1 stated that a certified nurse assistant(Staff #1) was grabbing and pulling their right arm roughly while attempting to change their shirt and Resident #1 sustained an ecchymosis to the area. There was no care plan to address potential victim for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review completed during the Recertification Survey conducted 11/28/2022-12/7/2022 the facility did not ensure that a resident assessed as high risk for pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent new ulcers from developing and to promote healing of a facility acquired stage 3 pressure ulcer for one of four residents (Resident #135) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, interventions and treatment measures were not implemented timely for Resident #135 who developed a facility acquired new and worsening stage 3 pressure ulcer. This resulted in actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy for Resident #135.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey and Abbreviate Survey (NY304719) conducted from 11/28/22 to 12/7/22, it was determined the facility did not ensure that a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment was maintained on 3 of 4 units (units 1 West, 1 East, and 2 West). Specifically, peeling wall paper, chipped paint, cracked broken plaster were observed in multiple resident rooms and dining room.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey conducted 11/28/22 to 12/07/22, the facility did not ensure that residents received services with reasonable accommodation of resident's needs and preferences for one of one resident (R#1) reviewed for Resident Rights. Specifically, the facility did not provide Resident #1 with adaptive equipment such as a lip plate and built-up utensils for meals as per care plan.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed 11/28/22 to 12/7/22, it was determined that for one of two residents (R#13) reviewed for Choices, the facility did not ensure that it promoted and facilitated the resident's right to self-determination through support of resident choice. Specifically, Resident #13 who is requires extensive assist and the use of a Hoyer lift, was put to bed early on multiple occasions at the request of the assigned CNAs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification conducted from 11/28/22 to 12/7/22, the facility had not ensure that they developed a thorough care plan based on the resident's assessment to ensure the services were provided to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical well-being for one of two residents (Resident #112) reviewed for Rehabilitation Services, Specifically, Resident #112 who was admitted to the facility for rehabilitative services after a fall at home, had no Acitivities of Daily (ADL) goals or interventions established on the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). The Findings Are: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey conducted from 11/28/22 to 12/7/22, it was determined that for one of three residents (Resident #58) reviewed for Accidents, the facility did not ensure that the Comprehensive Care Plan was revised to reflect the resident's current condition. Specifically, Resident #58 Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was not reviewed to determine effectiveness of interventions and not revised to include new interventions after a fall with major injury. The Findings Are: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Falls and Fall Risk, Managing with a revision date of 9/2022 documented based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey completed 11/28/22 to 12/7/22, it was determined that for one of one resident (Resident #91) reviewed for quality of care, the facility did not ensure a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice necessary to maintain or improve the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psycho-social well-being. Specifically, the facility failed to provide consistent routine oral care for Resident #91.
Inspectors wroteBased on [NAME] review, observation and interview during the Recertification Survey conducted 11/28/22-12/08/22, the facility did not ensure residents were provided nutritional care and services consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment for 1 of 3 residents (R#75) reviewed for Nutrition. Specifically, the facility did not consistantly provide dietary supplements to Resident #75 with significant weight loss. The finding is: Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnose including Chronic Kidney Disease, Dehydration, Dementia, and Depression. A review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS; a resident assessment tool) dated 9/26/22 documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition and a BIMS score of 8. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review during the Recertification Survey conducted 11/28/22-12/08/22, the facility did not ensure liquids concistantly remained at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 meal (lunch) observed. Specifically, a lunch tray temperature check on 12/6/2022 revealed a container of milk and juice were not kept at safe and appetizing temperatures. This is evidenced by: During an observation of a Test Tray on 12/6/2022 at 1:25 on the East Unit the Food Service Director sampled beverages temperature revealing a milk container was 56 degrees F, and a juice container was 62 degrees F. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification 11/28/2022-12/7/2022 the facility did not ensure food was procured, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards of food service safety. Specifically, the facility did not ensure supplements were available, monitored and ordered to maintain the residents' nutritional needs. Specifically, during meal observation from12/2/2022-12/3/2022 Resident #75 was not provided Magic Cup as per Physician order.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey conducted from 11/28/22 to 12/07/2022, the facility did not ensure that medical records were complete and accurately documented for one of three residents (Resident # 81) reviewed for Nutrition. Specifically, the Medication Administration Record for Resident #81 documented that the resident received Ensure although no Ensure was observed by the surveyor on the resident's tray
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review conducted during the most recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that it provided sufficient nursing staff to meet the needs of residents on 2 of 4 units (Units 1 and 2). This was evidenced by Units 1 and 2 (1 East and 1 West) being staffed below the maximum par levels for Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) approximately 50 % of the time during the past 3 months, multiple residents and staff complaints related to insufficient nursing staff, and observation of untimely care on one of the two units (Unit 1) for Residents #10, #42, #52, #83, and #138.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview conducted during the most recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the daily posting of nursing staff information consistently reflected all shifts and required data.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors. Specifically on 4/29/19 a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) did not administer medications prescribed by the physician to 12 of 14 residents. this was evident for Residents #32, 41, 64, 69, 72, 75, 86, 94, 101, 104, 119, and 142.) whose Medication Administration Records were reviewed for the omission of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review conducted during the most recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that proactive quality assurance measures were put in place to identify and address problems related to the implementation of a new electronic system for the administration of medications. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure that the comprehensive person-centered care plan was followed for 2 of 7 residents (Residents #12 and #76) reviewed for pressure ulcers, and a comprehensive person- centered care plan was developed for 1 of 2 resident (#58) reviewed for constipation. Specifically, 1. Heel boots were not applied for a resident with a suspected deep tissue injury in accordance with the care plan. 2. A bed cradle was not used/applied in accordance with the resident's care plan. 3. A care plan was not developed for a resident with a diagnosis of Rectal Cancer
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review conducted during the most recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the plan of care addressing falls for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #180) reviewed for accidents was reviewed after each fall to determine if there was a need for revision. Specifically, during a six-week period the resident, who required assistance with transfers, was seen out of bed and on the floor 4 times. There was no evidence that the resident's plan of care was reviewed to address the adequacy of the supervision being provided and effectiveness of other planned interventions until after the fourth fall which resulted in the resident sustaining a left hip fracture.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review conducted during the most recent re-certification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident received treatment and care based on the comprehensive assessment of the resident that was in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, 1. Resident #76 with a diagnosis of Diabetes did not receive timely Podiatry follow-up care, and 2. Resident #58 with a diagnosis of Rectal Cancer did not receive timely Oncology follow-up care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident received treatment and services to prevent and/or heal pressure ulcers. Specifically, there was no evidence the nursing staff implemented interventions to remove risk factors for a resident with a pressure ulcer This was evident for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident #12)).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review conducted during the most recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that falls were thoroughly investigated to determine the contributory factors and if planned interventions, were implemented to prevent recurrent falls for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #180). Specifically, during a six-week period the resident, who required assistance with transfers, was seen out of bed and on the floor 4 times. The investigations of these falls did not determine if the resident's plan of care regarding the wearing of nonskid socks when in bed was implemented. Also, the resident's plan of care was not reviewed to determine if revision was needed to more effectively address unassisted transfers from bed. The fourth incident resulted in the resident sustaining a left hip fracture.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the most recent recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that nursing staff followed proper hand hygiene during wound care treatment for 1 of 7 residents (#12) reviewed for pressure ulcers.
31 fire safety citations on file: 6 on April 1, 2025, 12 on December 7, 2022, 13 on May 2, 2019.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | New York | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.38 | 3.63 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.45 | 0.71 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.93 | 3.18 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.09 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.84 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 25.2% | 40.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.9% | 39.8% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.43 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.57 on weekdays and 2.93 on weekends, 18% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.37 in April to June 2025 to 3.38 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.38 | 0.45 | 3.57 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 184 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.43 | 0.47 | 3.61 | 2.96 | 5.2% | 0 of 92 | 186 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.43 | 0.49 | 3.65 | 2.87 | 1.5% | 0 of 92 | 184 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.37 | 0.53 | 3.57 | 2.86 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 182 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| New York, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.55 | 0.68 | 3.72 | 3.13 | 9.8% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.36 | $21.04 to $24.99 | 87,990 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $32.30 | $29.52 to $37.00 | 39,400 |
| Registered nurses | $52.62 | $45.60 to $62.34 | 205,810 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | New York | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.7 | 14.1 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.4 | 12.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 6.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.7 | 13.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.3 | 20.6 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.7 | 9.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Sapphire Nursing at Meadow Hill's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (44.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.8% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · New York: 101 better, 157 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 201 eligible stays.
9.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · New York: 12 better, 5 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 208 eligible stays.
7.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · New York: 7 better, 21 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 132 eligible stays.
71.5% this home
Median of homes: New York60.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 165 residents counted.
1.2% this home
Median of homes: New York0.6% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 246 residents counted.
1.4% this home
Median of homes: New York2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 246 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: New York98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 106 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: NEWBURGH OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Sapphire Care Group, a group of 8 nursing homes averaging 2.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abramczyk, Machla | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 20% | 09/01/2017 |
| Farkowitz, Esther | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 33% | 09/01/2017 |
| Platschek, Richard | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 33% | 09/01/2017 |
| Schuck, Robert | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 13% | 09/01/2017 |
| Platschek, Richard | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2017 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
Licensed assisted living homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its New York inspection record.
These are the official offices in New York. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.