Williamsbridge Center For Rehabilitation And Nrsg
1540 Tomlinson Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461 · For profit - Corporation · 77 certified beds · (718) 892-6600 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 harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 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 | 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 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 | 15.5% | 14.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.5% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 35.1% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 0.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.5% | 12.5% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.8% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.4% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 6.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.3% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 73.5% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.9% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 20.6% | 9.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.82 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.73 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 72.0% 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 25 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 0.56 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 32% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.3%CMS range 5.7–15.7 | 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 | 72.0% | 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 | 76.0% | 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 | 68.0% | 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 | 97.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.65 | 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 77 beds and averages 75.3 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 2 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 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.36 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.59 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.48 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-01-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 from 01/02/2025 to 01/08/2025, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, 1.) Infection prevention and control practices were not maintained during medication administration. This was evident in 1 of 3 nurses observed for medication administration. 2.) Staff failed to assist residents with hand washing or hand hygiene before meals. This was evident in 2 of 2 units observed during meals. 3.) A resident's urinary drainage bag was observed touching the floor. This was evident in 1 (Resident #4) of 3 residents reviewed for Urinary Catheter out of 22 sampled residents. The findings are: 1.) The facility's policy titled Infection Prevention and Control Program with a last revision date of 05/30/2024 documented that the facility adheres…
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 before2025-01-08 · 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 01/02/2025 to 01/08/2025, 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 observation. Specifically, 1.) The walk-in refrigerator contained undated items. 2.) A unit refrigerator contained spilled liquids and undated fruit cups and open drinks items. The findings are: The facility's policy titled Food Storage with a revision date of 05/10/2024 documented that food will be stored in an area that is clean, dry, and free from contaminants, stored at appropriate temperatures, and by methods designed to prevent contamination or cross contamination. All refrigerator units will be kept clean and in good working condition at all times. Perishable foods such as meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, fruits, and vegetables must be stored in the refrigerator immediately after receipt to assure nutritive value and quality. All food should be covered, labeled,…
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 · D2025-01-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 01/02/2025 to 01/08/2025, the facility did not ensure that residents' comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment and as needed. This was evident in 2 of 22 sampled residents (Residents #35, #18). Specifically, 1.) Resident #35's care plan related to Smoking was not reviewed and revised quarterly after each assessment, and 2.) Resident #18's care plan was not reviewed and revised after a fall occurrence. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Care Plans Comprehensive with a last revised date of 08/02/2024 documented that a comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial, and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The interdisciplinary team reviews and updates the care plan when there has been a significant change in the resident's condition, 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 · E2023-06-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 6/13/23 to 6/21/23, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. This was evident 1 (South Unit) of 2 resident units. Specifically, the make resident bathroom was observed to be dirty. The findings are: On 6/15/2023 at 12:39 PM and on 6/16 /2023 at 11: 40 AM, Male Resident's Bathroom on the South Unit was observed dirty and stained, with rust colored stains throughout the entire inside of the bathroom. On 6/21/2023 at 3:26 PM, the Director of Maintenance and Housekeeping (DOMH) was interviewed and stated they visit the resident's rooms twice daily. The resident bathrooms are cleaned every shift. The DOMH stated the bathrooms will be inspected more often to make sure they stay clean. 415.29(j)(1)
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-06-21 · 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 observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 06/13/2023 to 06/21/2023, the facility did not ensure that a safe food storage was practiced. This was evident during the Kitchen Observation. Specifically, expired water was observed in the kitchen's Emergency Food Storage Room (EMSR). The findings are: The facility policy titled Disaster/Plan dated 01/2023 documented in an emergency, the facility will have emergency food, water, and supplies for 3 days. This should include adequate water for additional people like staff, family members, rescue workers, and evacuees. On 06/20/2023 at 10:56 AM during the tour of the EMSR observation, there was an unopened box of 6 gallons of water with a use by date of 5/13/2022. On 06/21/2023 at 2:47 PM, an interview was conducted with the Food Service Director who stated they always look at the expiration date every time an order comes to the facility. They usually rotate all boxes in the central storage and the EMSR. These expired bottles of water were given to the facility from another facility…
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 before2023-06-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 6/13/23 to 6/21/23, the facility did not ensure infection control practices and procedures were maintained. This was evident for 2 (Resident #70 and #26) of 21 total sampled residents. Specifically, blood pressure (BP) cuffs were not cleaned and disinfected between use with Resident #70 and Resident #26. The findings are: The facility policy titled COVID-19 Environmental Management dated 2/1/2023 documented equipment/device that cannot be dedicated should be cleaned disinfected between each patient use. On 06/15/23 at 09:26 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 was observed on the resident unit using the BP cuff and machine to take Resident #26's in the resident's room. LPN #3 placed the BP cuff on Resident #26's left arm without sanitizing the BP cuff prior to placement. LPN #3 then rolled the BP machine into the hallway next to the cart without sanitizing the cuff. At 09:39 AM, LPN #3 did not sanitize the BP machine and placed the BP cuff onto Resident #70 to take their BP. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · 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 interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 6/1/23 to 6/21/23, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving injuries of unknown source were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegations were made to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). This was evident for 1 (Resident # 6) out of 5 residents reviewed for Accidents of 21 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility did not report an unwitnessed incident resulting in bilateral eye ecchymosis and frontal hematoma to Resident #6. The findings are: The facility policy titled Abuse last revised 01/2023 documented the Administrator/Director of Nursing (DNS) is responsible for investigation and reporting all allegations of suspected abuse, neglect, mistreatment, distortion, injury of unknown origin, misappropriation shall be promptly and thoroughly investigated by facility management. The Administrator shall report to the local police department, the ombudsman, 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 · D2023-06-21 · 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 the recertification survey from 06/13/23 to 06/21/23, the facility did not ensure a person-centered Comprehensive Care Plans (CCP) was developed and implemented to meet the resident's goal, and address the resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. This was evident for 1 (Resident #24) of 21 total sampled residents. Specifically, a CCP related to Resident #24's behavior of emptying their urine and feces into the garbage bin in their room. The findings are: The facility policy titled Care Plans Comprehensive last revised 1/2019, documented a Comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The facility policy titled Behavior Management dated last revised 1/2023, documented behavioral symptoms and approaches shall be planned in the resident-specific plan of care and communicated to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · 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 observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification from 6/13/23 to 6/21/23, the facility did not ensure a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 (Resident #27) of 2 residents reviewed for Edema out of 21 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #27 was observed on multiple occasions without Thrombo-Embolic Deterrent (TED)/compression stockings in place according to Medical Doctor Order (MDO). The findings are: Resident #27 had diagnoses of localized edema, diabetic peripheral angiopathy, and venous insufficiency. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #27 had moderately impaired cognition and required extensive assistance from 1 person to dress. On 6/14/2023 at 12:45 PM, 6/15/2023 at 2:43 PM, 6/16/2023 AT 9:55 AM, Resident #27 was observed sitting in their room, alert, watching TV, and without bilateral TED stockings on their legs. The MDO documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 6/13/23 to 6/21/23, the facility did not ensure a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment was provided for residents, staff, and public. This was evident in stairwell of facility that is used by staff and visitors to access the basement. Specifically, the stairwell used to enter and exit the resident unit was soiled and dirty with debris. The findings are: Between 06/13/23 12:43 PM and 06/16/23 at 09:57 AM, multiple observations of the facility stairwell used to travel from the resident unit to the staff locker room and conference room were made. The stairs had black dirt ground into the floor and stuck on each step. There were multiple steps with two-tone patches of flooring. Dust buildup was present on each step of the stairs. There were 2 dark mats at the foot of stairs, stuck to the floor and built up with dirt. On 06/21/23 at 03:26 PM, an interview was conducted with Director of Maintenance/Housekeeper who stated they are aware the stairs have mismatched floor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
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 06/13/23 through 06/21/23, the facility did not maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility is free of pests and rodents. This was evident for 1 (South Unit) of 2 resident units. Specifically, multiple gnats were observed room [ROOM NUMBER] and #20 on the South Unit. The findings are: The facility policy titled Pest Control dated 11/2021 documented the facility shall maintain an effective and ongoing pest control program to ensure the building is kept free form pests and rodents. On 06/13/23 at 10:00 AM, multiple gnats were observed on an uncovered sandwich in room [ROOM NUMBER]B on the South Unit. On 06/13/23 03:12 PM, 06/14/23 at 09:48 AM, 06/15/23 09:07 AM, and 06/21/23 09:35 AM multiple gnats and flies were observed resting on an empty urinal on the side of bed in 20 C on the South Unit. The facility document titled Pest Management dated 6/2/2023, 6/6/2023 documented the facility 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 · D2021-05-28 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 and Abbreviated survey, the facility did not ensure that pain management was provided to a resident who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. Specifically, a resident with chronic pain reported continued pain to the staff despite pain management. The nursing staff did not assess the resident's reported pain, complete pain assessments as ordered, or report the pain to the physician for follow-up. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pain management (Residents #273). The finding is: The facility policy, titled Pain Management dated 07/2019 documented the following: The facility is committed to reducing physical and psychosocial symptoms associated with pain to assist the resident in achieving their highest practicable level of functioning. The Pain management policy also documented that the facility…
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 before2021-05-28 · 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 interview during the recertification survey, conducted on 5/28/2021, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, 1) contracted vendors were not wearing the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) while working in the room of a resident on contact and droplet precautions; and 2) a resident's indwelling catheter drainage bag was on the floor on multiple occasions. This was evident for random observations of 2 residents (Resident #71 and Resident #222) on 1 of 2 units (1 South Unit). The findings are: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guidance titled Transmission-Based Precautions (undated), provides: Use personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately, including gloves and gown. Wear a gown and gloves for all interactions that may…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-01-08 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 01/02/2025 to 01/08/2025 the facility did not ensure the daily nurse staffing information included all the required information. Specifically, the daily posting of nurse staffing information did not include the actual number of hours worked by the licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care. This was evident during the review of the Staffing Task. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Staffing- Posting of Hours, Payroll Based Journal Submission with a last revised date of 10/2022 documented staffing posting should include the facility name, current date, resident census, facility specific shift scheduled for the 24 hour period and the number and actual hours worked by the following categories of nursing staff employed or contracted by the facility directly responsible for resident care per shift: Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses and Certified Nurse's Aides. During multiple observations from 01/02/2025 through…
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 CENTERS HEALTH CARE — 36 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
The other 35 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FARKAS, ELISABETH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 10/06/2022 |
| ROZENBERG, BETH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2009 |
| ROZENBERG, KENNETH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | 86% | since 01/01/2025 |
| GOLDMAN, NATHAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| HENDRIX, HEIDI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| LANTZITSKY, AHARON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| FRIEDMAN, YOSEF | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| MYINT, WIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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 335048. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-08, 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.