BronxCare Special Care Center
1265 Fulton Avenue, Bronx, NY 10456 · Non profit - Corporation · 240 certified beds · (718) 579-7000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0570)
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 improved from 3 to 4 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 | 24.1% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 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 | 2.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.9% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.4% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.9% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.6% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.0% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.9% | 13.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 26.4% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 7.0% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.8% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.22 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.33 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
Met the expected recovery: 46.0% 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 37 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 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 8% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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.
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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 7.4–14.8 | 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 | 46.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 56.8% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 40.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.5%CMS range 4.1–13.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.15 | 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 240 beds and averages 231.7 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 8 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 2.91 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 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 2.71 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.00 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-14 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's representative was notified of a change in resident's condition. This was evident in 1 (one) (Resident #143) of 1 resident reviewed out of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility did not inform Resident #143's family representative that the resident's fourth fingernail on the right hand was detached. The findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled Change in Condition which was last reviewed on 01/2025 documented that the charge nurse/supervisor will notify the resident's family member or designee of any or all change in condition that differs from the resident's baseline. Resident #143 was admitted with diagnoses that included Cerebrovascular Accident and Hypertension. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #143 was severely cognitively impaired. and that resident required substantial assistance with all activities of daily living.On 08/11/2025…
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 · Dcited before2025-08-14 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to report all alleged violations involving neglect, abuse, and/or including injuries of unknown source to the State Survey Agency. This was evident for one (1) (Resident #143) of six (6) residents reviewed for abuse out of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 05/23/2025, Resident #143's fourth finger on the right hand was bleeding and was subsequently noted with a detached fingernail on 05/24/2025. The resident was cognitively impaired and could not explain how the injury had occurred This incident was not reported to the New York State Department of Health. Cross Reference: F580 - Notify of ChangesThe findings include: The facility's policy and procedure titled Abuse Prevention Protocol with a last revised date of 06/2025 documented the investigator is trained to report incidents to the New York State Department of Health when there is reasonable cause for resident abuse. The policy stated that federal regulations require reporting…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident in one (1) (Resident #238) of one (1) resident reviewed out of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 05/16/2025, Resident #238 was observed with thick, brownish, foul smelling penile discharge. The attending physician was not appropriately notified of Resident #238's change in condition resulting to a delay in medical intervention. The findings include:The facility's policy and procedure titled Change in Condition with a reviewed date of 01/2025 documented at the time a change in condition is identified, the nurse will notify the medical doctor, document all findings in the assessment and evaluation in a progress note, and document the change in condition on the 24-hour report.Resident #238 had diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Coronary Artery Disease, and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia without lower…
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 · D2025-08-14 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure 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, record review, and interviews during the Recertification and Complaint (#668295) Survey, the facility failed to ensure that food was served at an appetizing temperature during meals. This was evident in one (1) (Unit 4) of five (5) units. Specifically, food served during meal service were not maintained at palatable and appetizing temperatures.The findings include:The facility's policy and procedure titled Food Temperatures with a reviewed date of 02/2024 documented all food is to be prepared, held, and served within the appropriate ranges to provide the highest quality of food and maintain aesthetic value of food. Minimum temperature for hot food is above 140 degrees Fahrenheit. During the Resident Council meeting on 08/08/2025, Residents #138 and #146 stated that food are often served lukewarm, and at times were served cold during meal service. The residents stated staff should not eat their meals prior to serving meals to the residents because meals are served late, not hot, and sometimes run out. Resident #66 stated food are served cold because meals are…
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 · E2023-06-08 · tag F0570 — patternAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification and Complaint survey, the facility did not ensure that a surety bond or similar protection with the amount equal to at least the current total amount of resident's funds. Specifically, the surety bond held by the facility did not cover the total amount of resident personal funds deposited with the facility. This was evident for 111 residents with personal funds out of 238 residents in the facility. The findings are: On 6/7/23 at 10:16am, the Finance Manager presented a surety bond in the amount of $150,000 with an effective date of 5/4/2009. The finance ledger dated 6/7/2023 with residents funds amount documented the current total amount of resident's funds was $257,687.53. The facility did not ensure that the value of the surety bond covered funds currently held in all residents accounts. On 6/7/23 at 12:54pm, the Finance Manager stated the amount of the surety bond was established in 2007. The Finance Manager stated there is an additional $90,000 in a CD (certificate of deposit), totaling the amount of surety…
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 · E2023-06-08 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 reviews, and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 6/1/23 through 6/8/23, the facility did not ensure that Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) was attempted for a prescribed psychotropic medication. This was evident in 2 (Resident #113 and #82) of 5 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medication out of a sample of 38 residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #113 had a diagnosis of dementia and was prescribed and administered Risperidone for agitation with no GDR attempted, and 2) Resident # 82 had a diagnosis of dementia and was prescribed Divalproex and Citalopram without a GDR attempt. The findings are: The facility policy titled Psychopharmacological Drugs/Chemical Restraints revised August 2022 documented that the policy is to ensure that all residents maintained on psychopharmacological medication are on the lowest dosage of drug to achieve effects and are reviewed on a regular basis to evaluate need for continued use. 1.) Resident # 113 was admitted to 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-08 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
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 interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 6/1/23 through 6/8/23, the facility did not ensure that each resident or resident representative was offered the opportunity to participate in the review of their Comprehensive Care Plan s (CCP). This was evident for 2 out of 4 residents reviewed for care planning out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #54 and Resident #444). Specifically, Resident #54 and Resident # 444 were not invited to participate in their care plan meeting. The findings are: The facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Planning (CCP) with no effective date and last updated in September 2022 documented the CCP will be prepared by the interdisciplinary team that includes the input from the resident when appropriate and the resident's family or legal representative. It also documented the Social Work Department staff will make a phone call and/or mail a letter of invitation to the designated representative prior to the meeting to invite them to…
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 · D2023-06-08 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 interviews conducted during the Recertification and Complaint survey, the facility did not ensure that residents are informed and provided written information concerning their right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and, at the resident's option, formulate an advance directive. This includes a written description of the facility's policies to implement advance directives and applicable State law. This was evident for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for Advance directive out of 35 sample residents (Residents #23, #121, and #229). Specifically, the facility failed to discuss and provide information concerning the resident's right and option to formulate an advance directive for newly admitted resident. The findings are: The facility Policy and Procedures titled Advance Directives dated June 2009, last revised August 2022, documented that the facility will conform to all applicable laws and regulatory agencies requirement while maintaining a program that ensures…
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 · D2023-06-08 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 staff interview conducted during the Recertification/Complaint survey from 6/1/23 to 6/8/23, the facility did not ensure that the resident and their representatives were provided with a written summary of the baseline care plan. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Advance Directive out of a sample of 35 residents. (Resident #229). The finding is: The facility policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Care Planning - Baseline Care Plans dated September 2022 documented: .The facility must provide the resident and their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan that includes but not limited to: The initial goals of the resident; A summary of the resident's medication and dietary instructions; Any services and treatments to be administered by the facility and personnel acting on behalf of the facility; Any updated information based on the details of the comprehensive care plan, as necessary. Resident #229 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that…
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 · D2023-06-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 6/1/23 to 6/8/23, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive care plan (CCP) was reviewed and revised to reflect changes in the resident's care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #444) of 2 residents reviewed for Respiratory out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #444's CCP was not reviewed and revised to reflect that Resident #444 was receiving oxygen therapy. The findings are: The facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Planning (CCP) with no effective date and last updated in September 2022 documented the CCP will be kept current by all disciplines on an ongoing basis. It also documented each discipline will be responsible for updating the care plan and alerting the team that a new problem has been identified. Resident #444 was admitted to the facility with diagnosis including Respiratory failure with hypoxia, Heart failure, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) The admission Minimum…
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 · D2023-06-08 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 6/1/23 through 6/8/23, the facility did not ensure a resident with an indwelling Foley catheter was provided care consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically, a resident was observed several times with an indwelling Foley catheter without a Medical Doctor's Order (MDO). This was evident in 1 of the 1 residents reviewed for urinary catheter out of 38 sample residents. (Residents # 105). The findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled Urinary Catheterization dated 9/2022 documented that urinary catheter should be placed under the direction of a physician's order-catheter change monthly and as needed by a licensed nurse. Resident #105 was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infection and Manic Depression. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that the resident had an indwelling catheter. On 6/1/23 at 10:38 AM, 6/2/23 at…
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 · Dcited before2020-10-28 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews conducted during re-certification survey, the facility did not report an alleged incident of resident-to-resident sexual abuse was reported to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) within 2 hours. Specifically, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) reported that she observed Resident #23 and Resident #38 (a cognitively impaired resident) engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior in the dining room. The facility did not report this allegation of resident-to-resident abuse to NYSDOH. This was evident for 2 of 3 residents sampled for abuse (Resident #23 and Resident # 38). The findings include: The facility's policy and procedure titled Abuse Prevention Protocol with a revised date 01/22/2020 states that an investigator is trained to report incident to NYSDOH Long Term Care bureau when there is reasonable cause for patient abuse without necessarily completing internal investigation. The policy further states that the federal regulations require reporting 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.
- Potential for harm · D2020-10-28 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 staff interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that an allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated and corrective actions were implemented. Specifically, (1) an allegation of potential resident-to-resident sexual abuse reported by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) who observed Resident #23 and Resident #38 (a cognitively impaired resident) engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior was not thoroughly investigated; and (2) a resident's allegations of abuse and neglect were not thoroughly investigated, and the corrective action of having male CNA's assigned was not implemented (Resident #63). This was evident for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for Abuse (Resident #s 23, 38, and 63) for 2 abuse allegations reviewed. The findings include: The facility's policy and procedure titled Abuse Prevention Protocol with a revised date 01/22/2020 documented that the nursing supervisor, department heads or designees are trained to make the initial…
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 · C2025-08-14 · tag F0582 — widespreadGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey, the facility failed to ensure residents, or their designated representatives, were provided appropriate notification at the termination of Medicare Part A benefits. This was evident in three (3) (Residents #187, #212, and #222) of three (3) residents reviewed for Beneficiary Notification out of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility did not provide residents with Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNF ABN- form CMS-10055) at the termination of their Medicare Part A benefits. The residents remained in the facility. The findings include: The facility policy titled Advanced Beneficiary Notice Non-Coverage with a last revised date of 01/2025, documented that the purpose of the policy was to ensure the facility issues, documents, and retains Advance Beneficiary Notices of Non-Coverage in accordance with Medicare/Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services rules so beneficiaries or their representatives are informed when the facility reasonably expects Medicare Fee for…
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.
“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.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| KENNEDY, PETER | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 02/20/2009 |
| COLON, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/25/2011 |
| FUENTES, MIGUEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/01/1992 |
| LOWE, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2000 |
| DEMARCO, VICTOR | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/01/1999 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 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.
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 335753. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, 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.