Throgs Neck Rehabilitation & Nursing Center
707 Throgs Neck Expressway, Bronx, NY 10465 · For profit - Corporation · 205 certified beds · (718) 430-0003 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 held steady at 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.
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 | 6.8% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.7% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.2% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.8% | 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 | 1.8% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.0% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 4.3% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.9% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.6% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.5% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.6% | 13.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 52.1% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.3% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.8% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.76 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.18 | 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.
45.7% 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 202 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 67.0% 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 91 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 0.38 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 66% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 45.7%CMS range 38.1–54.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 6.6–12.8 | 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 | 67.0% | 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 | 70.3% | 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 | 59.3% | 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 | 11.5% | 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 | 96.9% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 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 | 1.2% | 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 | 1.2% | 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 | 9.5%CMS range 7.1–14.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.69 | 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 205 beds and averages 194.6 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 10 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 2.91 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.50 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.88 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 2.59 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.03 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-13 · 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 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 one (1) (Resident #160) of three (3) residents reviewed for accidents out of 39 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #160 had an unwitnessed fall on 04/16/2024 when the resident was observed on the floor with decreased range of motion to the right lower extremity and complaints of pain, was transferred to the hospital and was admitted with a diagnosis of right hip fracture. This incident resulted in serious bodily injury that was not reported to the New York State…
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 · D2026-03-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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 observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that clinical records were maintained in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented. This was evident for one (1) (Resident #201) of one (1) resident reviewed for death out of 39 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #201's medical record did not contain assessment of the resident's change in condition on 02/19/2026. The findings are:The facility's policy and procedure titled Change in Condition with a last reviewed date of 01/15/2026 documented that at the time a change in condition is identified the nurse will notify the nursing supervisor/Registered Nurse Manager. The Registered Nurse will assess the resident and notify the attending physician and document all findings of the assessment and evaluation in a progress note including interventions and changes in physician's orders. If the resident expires, a physical assessment is done on the absence of apical pulse, respirations, and carotid pulse for 60-90 seconds.…
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 · F2026-01-07 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Abbreviated Survey 1DED64-H1, the facility failed to submit the direct care staffing information on the schedule specified by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Specifically, the facility failed to submit the direct care staffing data for Quarter four (4), 07/01/2025 -09/30/2025 in a timely manner.The findings are:The facility policy titled Reporting Direct-Care Staffing Information (Payroll -Based Journal) dated 11/20/2022, documented staffing and census information will be reported electronically to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through the Payroll-Based Journal system in compliance with 6106 of Affordable Care Act. The policy also documented staffing information is collected daily and reported for each fiscal quarter no later than forty-fine days after the end of the reporting quarter.The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Electronic Staffing Data Submission Payroll-Based Journal, Long Term Care Facility Policy Manual version 2.6 dated 06/2022 documented Section 6106 of the Affordable Care…
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 before2023-12-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 11/27/2023 to 12/1/2023, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained. This was evident for 1 (Unit 6) of 5 resident units. Specifically, blood pressure (BP) cuffs were not disinfected between resident use. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Infection Control: Point of Care Devices dated 06/12/2023 documented blood pressure machines should be cleaned between use to prevent spread of germs from one resident to the other. On 11/29/2023 at 08:29 AM, Unit 6 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 was observed applying the BP cuff to Resident #64 arm and reading their BP. LPN #1 removed the BP cuff and returned it to the BP machine. LPN #1 moved on to Resident #122, applied the BP cuff to the resident's arm, and obtained their BP reading. LPN #1 did not sanitize the BP cuff in between use with Resident #64 and Resident #122. On 11/29/2023 at 08:49 AM, LPN #1 was interviewed and stated they just realized they did not sanitize the BP cuff in…
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 · D2021-09-10 · 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
Based on record review and staff interview conducted during the Recertification and Complaint Survey (NY00277748), the facility did not ensure that residents' representatives were immediately notified about residents' conditions. Specifically, (1) the facility did not notify the resident's representative prior scheduled and taken resident for consult surgical procedure, (Resident #172). This was evident for 1 of the 3-residents reviewed for Notification of Change (Resident #172). The findings are: According to the CMS Guidance §483.10(g)(14) Notification of Changes, the facility must immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative(s) when there is-a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications). 1) Resident #172 was admitted to the facility 11/12/2020, with diagnoses that included Coronary Artery Disease (CAD),…
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 · D2021-09-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
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, the facility did not ensure that a person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was developed and implemented to meet resident's goals, and address the resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. Specifically, there was no CCP developed for resident's use of Oxygen therapy. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #167) The findings are: The facility Policy on Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP), last reviewed on 06/2021 documented the CCP is to include resident's problems, strengths and needs. An individual CCP will be developed for each problem, strength or need with intention of a culture of Person-Centered Care throughout the facility .Each CCP is to include measurable objectives and timetables in order to meet the resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial needs that are identified from the resident Comprehensive Assessments. Resident #167 was admitted to the facility with…
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 · D2021-09-10 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 staff interviews , the facility did not ensure that services provided or arranged by the facility as outlined by the Comprehensive Care Plan meet professional standards of quality including current evidence based practice. Specifically, Licensed Nurses did not inform the physician / Nurse practitioner when a resident with diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus had elevated Blood glucose readings and refusing treatment as ordered by the Physician. This was evident for 1 of 38 residents reviewed for care. (Resident #9) The finding is: The Licensed Practical Nurse job description states on the purpose as The primary purpose of your position is to provide direct nursing care to the residents ,and to supervise the day to day nursing activities performed by CNAs and other nursing personnel. On duties and responsibilities on charting and documentation includes amongst other -- transcribe physician's orders to resident charts , cardex , medication cards , treatment or careplans,as…
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 · D2021-09-10 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide 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 staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure an ongoing activities program was provided to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan. Specifically, a resident with severe cognitive impairment was observed for extended periods of time without meaningful activities. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Activities out of 38 sampled residents (Resident # 61). The finding is: The facility policy and procedure dated 2/21/2021 titled Activity Programs documented it is the policy of Throgs Neck Rehabilitation and Nursing Center to provide Activity programs which are meaningful, age appropriate, designed to promote self-esteem and allow residents to exercise their right to indulge in and to participate in activities of interest. Resident # 61 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included Peripheral…
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 · D2021-09-10 · 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 interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan to address a resident's elevated glucose levels and non-compliance with diabetes management. Specifically, a resident's frequent refusals of medication, finger sticks, and elevated blood glucose levels were not addressed by the care team to prevent possible complications associated with Diabetes Mellitus. This was evident in 1 of 38 sampled residents. (Resident #9) The finding is: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Diabetic Management dated 06/2021 documented the attending Physician orders treatment modalities in conjunction with a resident's individual needs. Disease management may include insulin management, fingerstick checks for blood glucose monitoring, and labs as indicated. Resident # 9 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Diabetes Mellitus…
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 · D2021-09-10 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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 review, and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident received necessary services to prevent new ulcers from developing. Specifically, a resident was not turned and positioned as indicated on the care plan This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Position, Mobility and 1 of 1 residents reviewed for Physical Restraints out of total sample of 38 residents. (Resident # 105 and Resident #61) The findings are: Resident #105 was admitted to facility with diagnoses that included but Dementia, Contracture of right hand, Functional Quadriplegia, and skin changes. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented short and long term memory problem and severely impaired cognitive skills. Resident at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Documented no venous or arterial ulcers. Resident has pressure relieving device for chair and bed. Resident on nutrition or hydration intervention and turning and positioning program. The Annual…
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.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · D2021-09-10 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 services and treatments were provided to prevent further decrease in range of motion (ROM) or mobility. Specifically, a hand roll and a hand splint were not provided to resident as per physician order. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Position, Mobility out of total sample of 38 residents. (Resident # 105) The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled, Issue of AFO's and other uncovered hard plastic splints/orthoses/prosthesis reviewed on 11/17 documented that the nursing department will take responsibility for daily applications/removal of device and Nurse Manager will be responsible to ensure that the information is entered in the CNA Accountability record. 1. Resident #105 was admitted to facility with diagnoses that included Dementia, Contracture right hand, Functional quadriplegia, and skin changes. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE]…
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 · D2021-09-10 · tag F0711 — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the Physician reviewed the resident's total program of care at each visit. Specifically, there was no documented evidence the Physician addressed a resident's consistently high blood sugars and non-compliance with diabetic management. This was evident for 1 of 38 sampled residents. (Resident #9) The finding is: The facility Policy and Procedure titled Diabetic Management dated 06/2021 documented the attending Physician orders treatment modalities in conjunction with a resident's individual needs. Disease management may include insulin management, fingerstick checks for blood glucose monitoring, and labs as indicated. Resident # 9 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Diabetes Mellitus, Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), and Atrial Fibrillation. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #9 had moderately impaired cognition and was able to make…
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 · D2021-09-10 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 staff interview conducted during the Recertification/Complaint survey, the facility did not ensure that the medication error rate was not less than 5%. Specifically, a resident was not administered with six (6) of the prescribed medications due during the Medication Administration Observations. This was evident for 6 of 29 opportunities observed, resulting in a medication error rate of 20.69%. (Resident #86). The findings are: The facility Policy on Unavailable Medications last revised 07/2021 documented that resident will receive necessary medications as ordered by the MD/NP. When the medication is not available, the MD/NP will be notified .Inform the resident of the medications that are unavailable and actions to be taken .Medication will be re-ordered via Sigma when resident has approximately one week supply remaining. Resident #86 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Anemia, Folate deficiency, Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), Hypertension, Asthma, and…
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 before2021-09-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 observations, record reviews, and staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that proper infection control practices and procedures were maintained. Specifically, an oxygen tubing was observed with no label, and there was no documented evidence that the oxygen tubing was changed. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #111) The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure titled Oxygen Therapy, last updated on 06/2021, documented that oxygen tubing should be dated and initialed when started each week. Resident #111 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Hypertension, and Heart Failure. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident # 111 with intact cognition. Section O of the MDS documented that Resident #111 was receiving Oxygen. On 09/02/2021 at 9:45 AM, Resident # 111 was observed using Oxygen, and the tubing…
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 · D2019-02-22 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
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 the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that individual financial records were available to individual residents through quaterly statements. Specifically, During interviews, two cognitively intact residents with personal funds held by the facility; stated that they did not receive quarterly statements of their account. This was evident for 2 out of 2 residents reviewed for Personal Funds out of 38 sampled residents. (Resident #45 and #142). The facility policy Resident Personal Funds Accounts revised 10/12 document Individual financial records will be available through quarterly statements and upon request to the resident or her legal or designated representative. The finding is: Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) dated [DATE] documented that the resident had intact cognition. On 02/13/19 at 10:21 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident #45 who stated she does not receive…
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 before2019-02-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 observations, Electronic health record review, and interviews the facility did not ensure that infection control practices were maintained. Specifically, a Resident (res) with use of a wound vac to the right foot was observed on two occasions with tubing and the wound vac machine on the floor. Res #237. This was evident for 1 of 38 res reviewed in the Investigation sample. Resident #237. The Finding is: Resident #237 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which include Osteomyelitis, Diabetes Mellitus and the presence of a Right Lateral Malleolus Vascular site and use of a wound vac. The admission Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that the resident's cognition is intact. the MDS further documented that the res requires extensive assist of one with all activities of daily living. On 2/14/19 at 12:15PM during an interview with the resident, state agent (SA) observed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and the nurse practitioner entered the res room to do fingerstick…
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to EXCELSIOR CARE GROUP — 33 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, 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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESTATE OF MAYER RISPLER | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| GEORGE KLEIN TESTAMENTARY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| BECHER, AARON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| BLOOM, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| BUSELL, SANDRA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| CHOPP, ALAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| FARKOWITZ, ESTHER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 7% | since 01/01/2025 |
| KLEIN, LARRY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| LEIFER, JOEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | 44% | since 01/01/2025 |
| LERNER, CHANA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| NAKDIMEN, SHELLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| PHILIPSON, BENT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| POCCHIA, TERESA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| POLLAK, THEODORE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| SINGER, BRUCHA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| STERN, RONALD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| TESSLER, NAOMI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2025 |
| EXCELSIOR CARE GROUP | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/12/2019 |
| FISCHEL, MAYER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| BROWN-WHITTINGHAM, ANDREA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/16/2022 |
| HERSH, ISAAC | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/22/2019 |
| ORGEL, BENZION | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/27/2022 |
| STEINBERG, MOSHE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/12/2019 |
| VEZZA, ELENA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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.
This home reported $7.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 335771. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-12-01, 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.