St Josephs Place
Port Jervis, New York · CCN 335692
7 surveys since 2011, and no finding has been recorded at harm level.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
- Citations on record
- 27
- Surveys
- 7
- Harm or worse
- 0
- Immediate jeopardy
- 0
No finding on record has been cited at harm level or above.
Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.
The facility
- Certified beds
- 46
- Ownership
- Non profit - Corporation
- Chain
- Independent
- County
- Orange
- Medicare-certified since
- 1988
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 4
- Health inspection
- 3
- Staffing
- 5
- Quality measures
- 3
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=7, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Mar 30, 2026
224 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 3.86 | 4.69 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 0.95 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 25.8% | 36.0% |
As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.
Enforcement
No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.
Severity of recent findings
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G— | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D763.6% | E327.3% | F— |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B19.1% | C— |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at St Josephs Place, in the surveyor’s own words.
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF584Mar 30, 2026
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a safe clean, comfortable, environment for three (3) of six (6) residents (Resident #20, Resident #25, Resident #33,) reviewed for Environment. Specifically, 1) wheelchairs for Resident #20 and Resident #25 were soiled, the walls in Resident #25's room had holes/dents/ unfinished paint and exposed caulk and Resident #33's wheelchair had torn fabric edges, soiled/worn padding on the armrests, and 2) the end cap on the radiator in the bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] was not affixed leaving an exposed sharp edge.The findings included:The policy for Wheelchair Cleaning and Disinfection last reviewed 11/03/2025, documented the facility committed to maintaining a clean and sanitary environment to reduce the risk of infection… […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF585Mar 30, 2026
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (2796313), the facility did not ensure that residents knew how to file a grievance or were informed of the response to the grievance for 12 of 12 residents (Resident #11, Resident #29, Resident #34, Resident #13, Resident #20, Resident #24, Resident #25, Resident #8, Resident #35, Resident #41, Resident #14, Resident #26) interviewed during resident council and one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for care planning (Resident #17). […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF677Mar 30, 2026
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (#2796313 and 2725477) the facility did not ensure that residents unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary assistance with toileting for one (2) of four (4) residents (Resident #27 and #17) reviewed for activities of daily living and other residents that expressed a delay in call bell times during the Resident Council meeting. Specifically, Resident #27 was not provided toileting assistance as needed to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living. 2) Resident #17 was observed with their call bell on and not receiving care timely. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF684Mar 30, 2026
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (2796313), the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and/or care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (1) of four (4) residents (Resident #17) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living. Specifically, Resident #17 was not scheduled to have a follow up appointment with the cardiologist within the time frame indicated on the patient hospital discharge instructions. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF695Mar 30, 2026
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident received necessary respiratory care, including oxygen therapy, in accordance with professional standards of practice and physician orders for one (1)) of three (3) residents (Resident #9) reviewed for Respiratory Care. Specifically, oxygen was not administered at the correct flow rate per physician order for Resident #9. Findings include:The policy and procedure titled Oxygen Administration, last revised 06/26/2025, documented the purpose was to ensure safe oxygen administration according to the physician's order.Resident #9 had diagnoses of chronic atrial fibrillation (long-term irregular heartbeat), congestive heart failure (fluid buildup in the lungs), and heart failure (the heart not pumping… […]
Read 20 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 20 of 27 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Mar 30, 2026Standard and complaint7 findings
- Jun 7, 2019Standard4 findings
- Jun 30, 2016Standard2 findings
- Jun 1, 2015Standard2 findings
- Apr 5, 2013—5 findings
- Apr 5, 2012—6 findings
- Apr 5, 2011—1 finding
Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.
Comparable facilities
The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction