Wayne Center For Nursing & Rehabilitation
3530 Wayne Avenue, Bronx, NY 10467 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 243 certified beds · (718) 655-1700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 fell from 4 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.
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 | 14.7% | 14.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.6% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 11.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 5.8% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.9% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 2.9% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.1% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 13.6% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.9% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.7% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 55.0% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.9% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.56 | 1.70 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.86 | 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.
40.0% 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 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 42.1% 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 76 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 40.0%CMS range 25.1–63.0 | 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 | 10.3%CMS range 7.0–14.5 | 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 | 42.1% | 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 | 42.1% | 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 | 44.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 0.7% | 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 | 5.4% | 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 | 8.1%CMS range 5.1–12.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 243 beds and averages 239.7 residents a day — about 99% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.44 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.08 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.10 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 3.03 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.61 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.16 to 0.88 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
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.
17 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-21 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 01/13/2025 to 01/21/2025, the facility did not ensure sufficient nursing staff were available to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, the facility reported short staffing on weekends confirmed by a review of the Daily Staffing and the Payroll Based Journal Staffing Data Report. The findings include: The undated facility policy titled Staffing of Nursing Service Personnel documented; each nursing home reports daily staffing hours to Medicare. Medicare calculates a ratio of staffing hours per resident day, the percent of nurse staff that stop working at the facility, and the number of administrators who have left the facility within a given year. These types of staff are included in the nursing home staffing information: Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, and Certified…
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 · Ecited before2025-01-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 1/13 /2025 to 1/21/2025, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident during the kitchen and pantry observations. Specifically, 1.) The dairy walk-in refrigerator contained opened and expired loaves of bread and bags of rolls. 2.) 2 of 6 pantry unit refrigerators contained expired milk as well as spilled, spoiled, undated and unlabeled food items. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Dry Storage with revision date of 01/01/2023 documented; that all dry goods must be stored in a safe and secure environment. New stock must be stored behind old stock so oldest items will be used first. Products should be dated to ensure First In-First Out. The Food Items Expiration Date Audit Tool documented that all areas must be inspected at least weekly to ensure that there are no expired food items. Any items that are expired must be immediately discarded.…
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 · E2025-01-21 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — patternDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 01/13/2025 to 01/21/2025, the facility did not ensure that the garbage storage areas were maintained in sanitary condition. This was evident during the Kitchen Observation. Specifically, kitchen waste was not disposed of properly and the outside garbage compacter lid was left open and uncovered. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Solid Waste and Pick-up, dated 07/11/2024, documented that the assigned dietary staff removes solid waste from all dietary areas. Solid waste is transported in covered receptacles and disposed of in the compactor. The outdoor compactor side lid must be kept always closed except when emptying trash bins or washing of dumpsters. On 01/15/2025 at 11:26AM During the kitchen observation of lunch preparation with Dietary Supervisor #1, Dietary Aide #1 was observed transporting an uncovered garbage can from the outside trash compactor past the food preparation area while lunch was being prepared. On 01/15/2025 at 11:30AM, an interview was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-21 · 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 record review and interviews conducted during a Recertification Survey from 01/13/2025 to 01/21/2025, the facility did not ensure that a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to meet each resident's needs. This was evident in 1 (Resident #46) out of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #46 who had diagnosis of Osteoporosis had no care plan developed and implemented. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Care Plans Comprehensive Person - Centered with the last revised date January 2023, documented that a comprehensive person-centered care plan that include measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The facility's policy and procedure entitled Baseline Care Plan, approved 03/2018, states that the care plan will include conditions and risks affecting the resident's health and safety. Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey between 01/13/2025 and 01/21/2025, the facility did not ensure that resident's Comprehensive Care Plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including quarterly review assessments. 1) Resident #74 Self care Comprehensive Care Plan was last reviewed 8/1/2024, and not updated quarterly, 2) Resident #187 who was maintained on Oxygen Therapy the Alteration in Cardiopulmonary Care Plan was not updated. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents of reviewed for Activities of daily Living (Resident #74), and 1 out of 3 resident review for oxygen (Resident #187) out of an investigative sample of 37 residents. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Care Plans Comprehensive Person-Centered dated reviewed 7/16/2024 documented the Interdisciplinary Team must review and update the care plan at least quarterly, in conjunction with the required quarterly MDS assessment. 1. Resident #74 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification Survey from 01/13/2025 to 01/21/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 2 (Resident # 19 and #187) out of 6 residents reviewed for respiratory care out of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident # 19 was observed using oxygen via the Nasal Cannula (NC) at 2 liters with no Medical Doctor's Order (MDO), and 2) Resident # 187 was observed using oxygen via undated nasal cannula tubing. The findings are: The facility's undated policy and procedure, Supplemental Oxygen, documented that oxygen therapy is administered to residents with medical conditions in which an enriched oxygen atmosphere will benefit them. Depending on the residents' inspiratory flow demands, oxygen can be administered using low-flow or high-flow oxygen delivery devices. The procedure is to check the resident chart for a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-21 · tag F0841 — isolatedDesignate a physician to serve as medical director responsible for implementation of resident care policies and coordination of medical care in the facility.
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 interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 01/13/2025 to 01/21/2025, the facility did not ensure that the Medical Director participated in the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement quarterly meetings. This was evident during review of the attendance sheets for the last four quarterly meetings, and the facility provided list of members of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee, and through interview with the Medical Director and other members of the Quality Assurance Committee. Specifically, the Medical Director stated that they do not attend the Quality Assurance quarterly meetings, and the Administrator stated that the Medical Director was too busy to attend the Quarterly Assurance quarterly meetings. The findings are: The undated policy titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program documented; that the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program is designed to provide an ongoing, coordinated systematic 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 · D2025-01-21 · 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 observations, record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 01/13/2025 to 01/21/20245, the facility did not ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 (Resident #187) of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #187 did not receive monitoring and maintenance of the peripheral intravenous site for the infusion of fluids and antibiotics. The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure titled Administration, Monitoring and Maintenance of Intravenous Therapy, undated, documented that the facility shall have a system in place for the administration, monitoring and maintenance of Intravenous therapy. Intravenous tubings shall be labeled with the date and time change. The Intravenous site and dressing shall be labeled with the date and time the needle/catheter was inserted, the gauge of the needle/catheter, and the date and time the dressing was changed. The nurse or physician who…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification and complaints (NY00342658) survey from 01/13/2025 to 01/21/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident remained free of accident hazards. This was evident for 1 (Resident #290) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents out of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #290 fell out of bed and sustained a 2.5 cm skin tear to the forehead during care when one staff provided care without a second staff member. The Findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Accident Prevention Reporting and Investigation, last revised June 6, 2021, documented that the purpose is to provide an environment free from accident hazards for the safety of the residents and staff. Identify the cause of an accident and obtain appropriate care for the injury. Resident #290 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that include Hemiplegia or Hemiparesis, Respiratory Failure, and Dependence on respirator [ventilator] status. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-12-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 12/12/2022 to 12/19/2022, the facility did not ensure safe food storage and infection control was practiced. Specifically, (1) expired pancake and waffle syrup, gallon bottles of distilled vinegar, and teriyaki sauce were observed in the dry storage room and expired cottage cheese was observed in the refrigerator, and (2) staff did not perform hand hygiene after handling a cup that touched the floor and in between serving residents lunch trays. This was evident during the Kitchen Observation and Dining Task. The findings are: 1.The facility policy titled 4.6 -Refrigerator Storage implementation/revision date 1/1/2018 documented upon receipt, immediately refrigerate perishable foods (eggs, milk, etc.). Rotate older items to the front so that they are used first. Date the opened, unused portions of packaged foods to ensure they will be used first. The facility policy titled 4.4- Dry Storage implementation/revision…
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 7 citations
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-19 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 from 12/12/22 to 12/19/22, the facility did not ensure each resident remained free from physical restraints. Specifically, there were no ongoing re-evaluation assessments conducted for the need for bilateral upper and lower side rails for Residents #58 and #112. The two residents were observed on several occasions in bed with bilateral upper and lower side rails in use. This was evident for 2 out of 7 residents reviewed for Physical restraints out of a sample of 39 residents. The findings are: The facility policy titled Restraints/Devices Physical dated 4/2/19 documented a physical restraint is any manual method, or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the Resident's body that the Resident cannot remove easily and restricts freedom of movement or normal access to the Resident's body; it cannot be removed by the Resident in the same manner as it was applied by staff. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-12-19 · 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 interview and record review conducted during a Recertification and Complaint survey (NY00303408) conducted from 12/12/22 to 12/19/2022, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, to the State Survey Agency. Specifically, the facility did not report an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) within 2 hours. This was evident for two allegations for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for Abuse out of a sample of 39 residents. (Resident #49 and Resident #148) The findings are: The undated policy and procedure titled Abuse Prevention documented the facility ensures that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property are reported in adherence with the current regulatory guidelines for incident reporting set forth by the NYSDOH: immediately, but no…
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 · D2022-12-19 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 staff interview conducted during a Recertification survey from 12/12/2022 to 12/19/2022, the facility did not ensure that each portion of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflects the resident's status. Specifically, 1). the MDS did not accurately document falls for a resident with a history of falls, and 2). MDS assessments did not accurately document that four side rails were used with a resident. This was evident for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for Accidents and 2 of 7 residents reviewed for Physical Restraints out of a of 39 sample residents. (Resident #37, #112, and #58). The findings are: The facility policy titled Minimum Data Set (MDS) Completion Policy and Procedure last revised 07/2022 documented the purpose to identify each resident's needs, problems, and strengths in order to establish a course of action through an individualized comprehensive care plan. To achieve the highest possible level of functioning through proper implementation of the care plan. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-12-19 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the record review and interview conducted during a Recertification survey from 12/12/2022 to 12/19/2022, the facility did not ensure that each resident or resident representative was offered the opportunity to participate in the review of their Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). Specifically, resident and their representatives were not invited to participate in the review and revision of the residents' care plan. This was evident 2 of 4 residents reviewed for Care Planning out of 39 sampled residents. (Resident #112, and #37) The findings are: The facility policy and procedure, Invitations Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) dated 12/07/2021, documented that resident are scheduled for CCP during the following times: initial assessment, quarterly, annually, or for a significant change in status. The facility's policy is to extend an invitation to residents and family members/Next of Kin (NOK) for the initial assessment, annual assessment, and significant change. If the resident and family request to be invited to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-12-19 · 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 from 12/12/22 to 12/19/22, the facility did not ensure a resident with limited range of motion received treatment and services to maintain or improve mobility. This was evidenced by 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Mobility out of 39 sampled residents (Resident #208). Specifically, there was no documented evidence that Resident #208 right knee orthosis was applied in accordance with a physician's order. The findings are: The facility policy titled Adaptive Devices dated 1/15/20 and revised 02/14 2022, documented that as part of the procedure, a Medical Doctor's order will be obtained with the wearing schedule, inservice will be given to the nursing Staff, and nursing instructions will be updated. Resident #208 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Dependence on respirator [ventilator] status, Cerebral infarction, and Acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2020-01-13 · 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 observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident received services to prevent a further reduction in mobility. Specifically, a resident with an order for splinting devices to prevent worsening of contractures to bilateral upper extremities was observed on multiple occasions without splinting devices in place. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed in the areas of Position/Mobility (Resident #53). The findings are: A policy and procedure related to Orthotic Devices dated 4/8/16 documented that the Nursing department will pick up the request for orthotic device order and document the use of orthotic device in the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) accountability documentation. Resident #53 had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and contracture of unspecified joint. On 1/07/20 at 9:42 AM, 1/08/20 at 11:25 AM, 1/09/20 at 11:16 AM, and 1/10/20 at 11:21 AM, Resident #53 was observed lying in bed 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 · D2020-01-13 · 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 observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that infection control practices were maintained. Specifically, a resident's oxygen tubing was observed to be laying on the floor in the resident's room. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care (Resident #187). The findings are: An undated facility policy and procedure related to Respiratory Care documented that disposable equipment should be free of contaminants and changed once exposed to contaminants. Resident #187 had diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia and respiratory failure. On 1/08/20 at 10:21 AM, Resident #187 was observed to be lying in bed in his room with an oxygen concentrator providing oxygen to his trach collar via oxygen tubing. The oxygen tubing was observed to be laying on the floor between the resident's bed and oxygen concentrator. Registered Nurse (RN) #1 was standing next to the resident's bed in front of the oxygen concentrator. The RN…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISAAC E GOLDBRENNER ESTATE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 02/19/2024 |
| BRACHFELD, JOSEPH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | 33% | since 10/01/2021 |
| HARTMAN, ISRAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | 33% | since 10/01/2021 |
| FELDMAN, BENJAMIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2006 |
| DANIEL, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| SKAIST, SHMUEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| 3530 WAYNE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/12/2000 |
| MEDCO ENTERPRISES, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 8 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 $2.4M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 335495. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-21, 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.