No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Fordham Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

2678 Kingsbridge Terrace, Bronx, NY 10463 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 240 certified beds · (718) 796-5800 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (718) 796-5800 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Oct 2024
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
Pharmacy
145 W Kingsbridge Rd · (718) 708-8665 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2701 Sedgwick Ave · (347) 346-4239 · Call to confirm hours
Park
2799 Reservoir Ave · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
211 W Kingsbridge Rd

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 4 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 2 to 3 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased6.8%14.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.1%5.8%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.1%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.3%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms91.6%19.5%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.7%3.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened4.9%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication3.4%13.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine99.5%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.3%6.5%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control10.9%19.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.2%13.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.0%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.8%78.8%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission28.5%20.6%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.8%9.6%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.651.701.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.961.361.80typical

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.

44.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 52 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

44.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
68.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.30U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.17hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 68.5% 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 159 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 48% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF44.5%CMS range 33.6–56.651.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.7%CMS range 6.6–15.010.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge68.5%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge78.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge68.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting97.7%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 discharge60.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay2.8%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.7%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.5%CMS range 4.0–12.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.241.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

1.00
RN hours/ resident / day
0.15
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.94
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.09
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.83
RN hoursweekends
46.7%
Total nursing turnover
44.8%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 240 beds and averages 226.8 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 2.88 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.17 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.07 to 0.83 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as 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

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-10-28)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2022-09-14)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · E2024-10-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 10/21/2024 to 10/28/2024, the facility did not ensure infection control practices were followed. This was evident during the Dining Task for 1 of 5 dining rooms. Specifically, 1. The kitchen did not ensure that food items were discarded by the use/expiration date. This was evident for the Kitchen Task. 2. Certified Nursing Assistant #8 did not perform hand hygiene in between residents while assisting multiple residents with hand hygiene prior to lunch being served this was evident for the 5th floor. The findings are: The facility policy titled Standard Precautions for Infection Control that was revised on 11/2017 and reviewed 07/23/2024 documented, It is the policy of the facility to follow and apply standard precautions as infection prevention measure during all resident care regardless of suspected or confirmed infection status of the resident. Standard precautions is based on the principle that all blood,…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-28 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 interview and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 10/21/2024 to 10/28/2024, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, including injuries of unknown source were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the New York State Department of Health. This was evident for 1 (Resident #209) out of 5 residents reviewed for Accidents out of 37 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility did not report an incident when Resident #209 was found on the floor with laceration on the hand and a head contusion, to the New York State Department of Health. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled, Reporting and Investigation of Resident Abuse, Neglect,…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-28 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 10/21/2024 through 10/28/2024, the facility did not ensure that the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment accurately reflected a resident's status for 2 ( Resident #170 and #79) residents out of total 38 sampled residents. Specifically, (1) Resident #170 who was not receiving anticoagulant medication was coded as receiving anticoagulant medication. (2) Resident #79 was coded as receiving hospice services after hospice services were ordered disconinued . The findings include are: The facility policy titled MDS Assessment Version 3.0 effective 10/2023 documented the facility will conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, standardize reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity. The assessment must reflect the status of the resident including resident strengths and needs that must be addressed in an individualized care plan. The Minimum Data Set Assessment Version 3.0 Correction /…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-28 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolated
    Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
    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 Recertification Survey from 10/21/2024 to 10/28/2024, the facility did not provide, based on the comprehensive assessment, interests, and the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, the facility did not appropriately assess interests and activity preferences for non-English speaking resident and provide an ongoing program of activities designed to meet their interests for Resident #209. This was evident for 1 (Resident #209) resident reviewed for Activities out of 37 total sampled residents. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure entitled Activity Recreation Program and Assessment revised 11/2016 documented that facility shall provide for an ongoing program of activities designed to meet the interest and the physical, mental, psychosocial…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-28 · tag F0711 — isolated
    Ensure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 10/21/2024 to 10/28/2024, the facility failed to ensure that the physician reviewed the resident's total program of care at each visit. This was evident for 1 (Resident #74) of 1 resident reviewed for an Optometry consult. Specifically, there was no documented evidence that the recommendations by the Optometrist to see the Ophthalmologist was carried out. Additionally, the Optometry consult was dated 04/05/2024 and attending physician reviewed and signed the consult on 09/07/2024 which was 5 months later then the consult date. The findings are: The facility policy titled Medical and dental Consults dated 05/2024 documented it is the policy of the facility to arrange for services of qualified professional personnel to render specific medical services. An order for consultation shall be placed in the electronic medical record (EMR) with the reason for consultation. Consultations shall be completed within 30 days of 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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 10/21/2024 to 10/28/2024, the facility did not ensure that infection control prevention practices and procedures were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This was evident in 1 of 1 resident observed for tube feeding. Specifically, Enhanced Barrier Precautions were not maintained during tube feeding administration for residents with gastrostomy tubes. (Residents #187) The findings are: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality/Quality, Safety & Oversight Group memorandum titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions in Nursing Homes, Ref: QSO-24-08-NH dated 03/20/2024 documented that effective 04/01/2024, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is issuing a new guidance for long term care facilities on the use of enhanced barrier precautions to align with nationally…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-28 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated Survey (NY00354048) from 10/21/2024 to 10/28/2024, the facility did not ensure that it promoted and facilitated resident self-determination through the support of residents choice for 1 (Resident #190) of 2 residents reviewed for Choices out of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, the preferred number of showers per week were not obtained and not provided in accordance with Resident #190's wishes. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Showers and Bed Bath reviewed 08/2020 documented, It is the policy of the facility that each resident is to have a minimum of two baths/showers each week and all residents shall receive a bath between scheduled showers or tub/whirlpool bath unless otherwise requested by resident. Resident #190 was admitted with diagnoses of Hypertension, Depression and Cervical Disc Disorder with Myelopathy (is a serious condition that occurs when the spinal cord in the neck is…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-09-14 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification and Complaint survey (NY00293567) from 9/7/22 to 9/14/22, the facility did not ensure that in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, medical records were maintained that were complete and accurately documented for each resident. Specifically, medication administration was not documented for scheduled medication and there was no documented evidence that medication had been refused by the resident. This was evident for 1 of 3 resident reviewed for Pain Management out of 38 sampled residents. (Resident # 361) The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Medication Administration Guidelines effective 6/17 documented medication are given only with a physician's order. Medication are to be administered no more than one hour on either side of time. STAT and as needed (PRN) medications are to be entered on the EMAR/MAR along with the date, dose and time of administration and medication nurse's initials and the reason for the as needed medications. All medication administered are to be…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-12 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan. Specifically, staff did not identify and address a resident's abrasions/injuries during skin assessments. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Skin Conditions. (Resident #22) The findings are: A facility policy and procedure related to Skin Inspection Treatment dated 4/16 documented that a thorough inspection of the resident's skin surface, particularly all areas over bony prominence, on each shift by the assigned Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and weekly by the licensed nurse. The CNA reports all changes to the licensed nurse. The licensed nurse documents weekly observation in the medical record. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of viral hepatitis and depression. The most recent…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-12-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident received devices to prevent pressure ulcers. Specifically, a resident was observed on multiple occasions without heel booties or diabetic shoes as ordered by the Physician. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. (Resident #37) The findings are: Resident #37 had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and dementia. On 12/08/19 at 10:34 AM and 12/10/19 at 10:33 AM, Resident #37 was observed to be laying in bed in her room. Two blue heel booties were observed to be on the resident's bedside table in the far-right corner of the room and no heel booties were observed on the resident's feet. On 12/10/19 at 11:00 AM and 12/11/19 at 11:35 AM, the resident was observed to be dressed, groomed, and out of bed to her wheelchair. The resident was observed to be wearing black regular sneakers. There were no diabetic shoes observed in the resident's room on…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and staff interviews during the recertification survey the facility did not maintain infection control practices to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, one resident receiving oxygen by a nasal cannula with the oxygen tubing coming from the oxygen concentrator was resting on the floor in the residents room. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for oxygen therapy. (Resident #81). The facility policy titled, Oxygen Therapy dated 6/17 documents: General Instructions- 2) The Nursing staff will set up, check and supervise all treatments. Procedure - 6) Oxygen tubing and masks will be changed weekly unless soiled by the 11PM - 7AM staff and as necessary if cleanliness is compromised. On 12/08/19 at 9:53 AM and 12:54 PM, Resident #81 was observed lying in bed. The resident was receiving oxygen via nasal cannula from an oxygen concentrator on the left side of the bed. The oxygen tubing coming from the oxygen concentrator was running along the floor and up the side of the bed 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CASSENA CARE — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 54.2-1.2 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.6-0.6 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.8-0.8 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 54.7-1.7 vs chain
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
DEBENEDICTIS, PASQUALEIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER28%since 04/01/2023
RUTENBERG, SOLOMONIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER39%since 04/01/2023
SCHRIEBER, MICHAELIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST5%since 08/01/2016
SOLOVEY, ALEXIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER28%since 04/01/2023
SKOCZYLAS, ELIIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 08/01/2016
DEROSA, ANTHONYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 08/01/2016

CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

$30.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-4.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.8M
Related-party expense9% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 59%Medicare 10%Other / private 31%

This home reported $2.8M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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

$384per resident / day
operating cost
$11,684per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$369per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in New York
$15,528/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$16,729/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,110/mo
Assisted living

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 335659. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-28, 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.

What to do next