Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around November 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Safire Rehabilitation Of Southtown, L L C during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with dementia and type 2 DM, assessed and care planned to require two staff for transfers, was transferred using a mechanical lift by only one CNA, in violation of facility policy requiring two caregivers for such transfers. The CNA, who had been trained on mechanical lift use, reported proceeding alone because they believed no one was available to help and the resident was asking to go to bed near the end of the CNA’s shift. The resident was later found on the floor near the lift with a significant leg laceration, and subsequent review confirmed the lift and sling were functioning properly while other staff reported that two aides had been working on each hallway during that shift.
A resident with hypothyroidism did not receive their prescribed Synthroid medication on multiple occasions due to unavailability and lack of proper documentation and notification by the nursing staff. The medication was not located in the facility's dispensing system, and the physician was not informed of the missed doses until later. This resulted in a deficiency in the facility's adherence to professional standards of practice.
A facility was found deficient in meeting residents' nutritional needs, with insufficient protein portions and lack of standardized recipes. Dietary staff prepared meals based on personal knowledge, and the facility's menus were not reviewed by a dietitian. The facility also lacked written nutrient guidelines and did not provide individualized menus to residents.
A facility failed to provide meals that accommodated the dietary needs and preferences of three residents, including a resident with celiac disease who was not given gluten-free options. Despite documented dietary requirements, residents received meals that did not align with their preferences or medical needs. Staff interviews revealed a lack of communication and understanding of dietary requirements, with budget constraints cited as a reason for not ordering necessary gluten-free products.
A resident with severe morbid obesity and other conditions was given bed baths instead of showers as per their preference and care plan. Staff cited safety concerns with the shower chair, but a suitable bariatric chair was available on another floor. The care plan was not updated, and the resident's preference was not honored.
The facility failed to comply with Section 915 of the 2020 Fire Code of New York State by not conducting required testing and maintenance of carbon monoxide detectors. Observations and interviews revealed that some detectors did not respond to testing, and there was no task in the maintenance system to address their testing.
Single-Staff Mechanical Lift Transfer Leads to Resident Fall and Laceration
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a safe environment and provide adequate supervision during a mechanical lift transfer, resulting in a resident fall and injury. Facility policy for "Resident Transfer Using a Total Mechanical Lift" required that two or more caregivers be present and assisting at all times, with at least two caregivers having hands-on contact with the resident and the lift. The resident involved had dementia and type 2 diabetes mellitus, was cognitively impaired, and was assessed on the Minimum Data Set as needing assistance of two staff members for transfers. The resident’s care plan also documented dependence on two staff for transfers using a gait belt. On the date of the incident, the resident was transferred via mechanical lift by a single CNA, contrary to policy and the resident’s assessed needs. The CNA reported they could not find another staff member to assist, knew they should not perform the transfer alone, but proceeded because the resident repeatedly requested to go to bed and it was the end of the CNA’s shift. The resident was later found on their left side near the mechanical lift with a six-inch laceration on the left leg and was sent to the emergency room. Subsequent examination of the sling and lift by nursing leadership found the equipment to be in good working order. Staff interviews confirmed that two staff members were expected for mechanical lift transfers and that other aides had been available on the unit at the time of the incident.
Failure to Administer Synthroid as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident #7 received Levothyroxine Sodium (Synthroid) as ordered, resulting in a deficiency. Resident #7, who was admitted with diagnoses including hypothyroidism, celiac disease, and chronic kidney disease, did not receive their prescribed Synthroid medication on multiple occasions in January 2025. The medication was scheduled to be administered daily at 6:30 AM, but it was not given on several dates, and there was no documentation or physician notification regarding the missed doses. Interviews with the resident, family members, and nursing staff revealed that the medication was often unavailable or not located in the medication cart. Licensed Practical Nurses and Registered Nurses involved in the resident's care were unaware of the medication's unavailability and did not notify the physician or document the reasons for the missed doses. The facility's medication dispensing system did not contain the required dosage of Synthroid, and the medication was not properly tracked or stored, leading to confusion among the nursing staff. The Director of Nursing and other supervisory staff were not informed of the medication issues, and there was a lack of communication and documentation regarding the missed doses. The physician was only notified after several doses were missed, and adjustments to the administration time were made without addressing the underlying issue of medication availability. This lack of adherence to professional standards of practice resulted in the resident not receiving necessary treatment as ordered.
Deficiency in Nutritional Adequacy and Menu Review
Penalty
Summary
The facility was found to have deficiencies in meeting the nutritional needs of its residents during a complaint investigation. Observations revealed that the facility's menus and nutritional adequacy did not align with established national guidelines, and the menus were not reviewed by a dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional. Specifically, during lunch and dinner observations, it was noted that the protein portions provided were insufficient, with only 2 oz of protein being served, which is below the recommended 3-4 oz per meal. The investigation highlighted that the facility lacked standardized recipes, and the dietary staff prepared meals based on their training and personal knowledge rather than documented guidelines. The Dietary Supervisor and other staff members were observed plating meals without intervention from the Acting Dietary Department Director, who also made independent decisions regarding meal alternatives without consulting residents' preferences. The facility's dietitian was unaware of any written nutrient guidelines and assumed that the dietary staff knew the proper scoop sizes for plating food. Further interviews revealed that the facility's corporate menus, last reviewed in the summer of 2024, omitted the nutritive value of foods, and the facility did not maintain written nutrient guidelines. The Regional Registered Dietician noted that the facility did not utilize a software program for nutritive analysis, which could have been obtained through other means. The deficiency was compounded by the lack of individualized menu distribution to residents and limited meal alternatives, which were often leftovers or items available in the refrigerator.
Failure to Accommodate Dietary Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food that accommodated the allergies, intolerances, and preferences of three residents, leading to a deficiency. Resident #7, who was on a no added salt renal, gluten-free diet, was not provided with gluten-free products and food preference choices. Despite being cognitively intact and having a comprehensive care plan that documented their dietary needs, Resident #7 repeatedly received meals that did not meet their dietary restrictions, such as tuna fish with mayonnaise instead of the preferred chicken breast, and breaded fish which they could not consume due to their celiac disease. Resident #1 and Resident #2 also did not receive meals according to their preferences. Resident #1 expressed a dislike for tacos and fish, yet these were served, prompting their family to order meals from an outside source. Resident #2 reported dissatisfaction with the vegetables and meals served, which did not align with their documented preferences of disliking spicy foods, rice, and fish. Interviews with facility staff revealed systemic issues in the dietary department, including a lack of communication and understanding of residents' dietary needs. The Acting Dietary Department Director admitted to not ordering gluten-free products due to budget constraints and a lack of awareness of specific resident requests. The Registered Dietician and other staff members acknowledged the failure to provide the necessary dietary accommodations, and the facility's administration was unaware of these issues until they were brought to their attention during the investigation.
Failure to Honor Resident's Shower Preference
Penalty
Summary
The facility did not allow a resident to choose activities, schedules, and health care consistent with their interests, assessments, and plan of care. Specifically, a resident with severe morbid obesity, multiple sclerosis, and fragile X syndrome was given a bed bath instead of a shower as planned and per their stated preference. The resident's care plan documented a preference for showers twice a week, but the care profile and shower schedule were inconsistent, and the facility was unable to provide evidence that showers were provided per the resident's care plan. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident was given bed baths because the shower chair on the unit was deemed unsafe for their weight. The Unit Manager acknowledged the issue but stated that the previous administration had not addressed it. The Environmental Director confirmed that a bariatric shower chair that could accommodate the resident's weight was available on another floor. Despite the resident's expressed preference for showers, the care plan was not updated, and the resident continued to receive bed baths instead of showers.
Non-Compliance with Carbon Monoxide Detector Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility was found to be non-compliant with Section 915 of the 2020 Fire Code of New York State, which mandates carbon monoxide detection in buildings with fuel-burning appliances and ongoing preventative maintenance of carbon monoxide detectors. During a building tour, it was observed that the facility had Brand A single-station battery-operated carbon monoxide detectors in various locations, including resident unit corridors, the Main Kitchen, and the Laundry Room. Additionally, a Brand B single-station hard-wired carbon monoxide detector was located in the Boiler Room. However, the facility failed to conduct the required testing and maintenance of these detectors as per the manufacturer's recommendations. Interviews with the Environmental Director, Maintenance Supervisor, and Maintenance Assistant revealed that the Brand A carbon monoxide detectors were installed after the last Life Safety Code survey in 2023, but no testing had been performed on them. The Maintenance Assistant was unable to identify a test button on the Brand A detectors, and subsequent testing attempts showed that some of these detectors did not produce any light or sound when tested. The Environmental Director admitted that there was no task in the automated maintenance work order system to address the testing of these detectors, and they were unfamiliar with the Brand A detectors. The Brand B detector in the Boiler Room was also not tested regularly as required. The Environmental Director acknowledged the importance of testing carbon monoxide detectors to ensure their functionality in an actual emergency. It was noted that the Brand A detectors were not mechanically repairable, and the three detectors that did not respond to testing needed to be replaced. The facility's failure to test and maintain the carbon monoxide detectors as per the manufacturer's instructions resulted in non-compliance with the applicable fire code and regulations.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 142 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 2 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Buffalo
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mercy Hospital Skilled Nursing Facility | 0.6 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Seneca Health Care Center | 1.6 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Garden Gate Health Care Facility | 4.2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Elderwood At Cheektowaga | 5.2 mi | — | 4 | 0 |
| Highpointe On Michigan Health Care Facility | 5.4 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Safire Rehabilitation Of Southtown, L L C.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.