Oxford Nursing Home
144 S. Oxford Street, Brooklyn, NY 11217 · For profit - Corporation · 235 certified beds · (718) 638-0360 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (20% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (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 (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 5 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 | 10.2% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 15.3% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.2% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.6% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.0% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 16.2% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.3% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.07 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.18 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
45.3% 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 44 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 78.9% 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 109 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 0.51 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 45.3%CMS range 32.8–57.9 | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 6.8–15.5 | 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 | 78.9% | 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 | 82.6% | 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 | 71.6% | 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 | 99.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 2.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.3%CMS range 3.4–11.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.73 | 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 235 beds and averages 215.3 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 20 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.46 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.44 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.63 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.66 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 20% 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.
21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (664597 and 664596), the facility did not ensure that an alleged violation involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator or the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities). This was evident for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) out of 4 residents sampled for abuse. Specifically, 1) On 05/27/2025 at 8:15 PM, Resident #1 alleged staff were rough with them during a two-person transfer via Hoyer…
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 before2025-09-09 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: 1 Number of residents cited: 1 Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not provide an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #44) of 1 resident reviewed for Activities out of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #44 was not provided with activities that met their interests and cultural preferences. The findings are:The facility policy titled Recreation Department Policy & Procedure with undated effective date and last reviewed date 03/20/2025 documented the Recreation Department shall plan, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive program of therapeutic and leisure activities designed to meet the individual needs and preferences of all residents. The policy also documented the Recreation Department provides meaningful,…
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 · E2023-09-26 · tag F0655 — patternCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during a Recertification Survey from 9/20/2023 to 9/26/2023, the facility did not ensure baseline care plans (BCP) were completed timely and residents and their representatives were provided with a written summary of the BCP. This was evident for 3 of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #165 and their designated representative did not receive a copy of the BCP, 2) The BCP for Resident #447 was not completed timely and the resident and their designated representative did not receive a copy of the BCP, and 3) the BCP for Resident #171 was not completed within 48 hours of admission and a copy was not provided to the resident and their representative. The findings are: The facility policy titled BCP dated 7/18/23 documented the interdisciplinary team (IDT) complete their sections of the BCP within 24 hours of a resident's admission. The Registered Nurse (RN) Manager signs, dates the BCP with the completion date, prints a copy of the BCP,…
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 before2023-09-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from [DATE] to [DATE], the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in locked compartments. This was evident for 3 (1st, 2nd, and 4th Floors) of 5 floors. Specifically, 1) intravenous antibiotic medication for reconstitution was not stored in a locked compartment on the 2nd Floor, 2) prescribed eye drops were observed unlabeled and undated on a medication cart on the 1st Floor, and 3) blister pack medications were observed stored behind nursing station accessible to the public on the 4th floor. The findings are: The facility policy titled Medication Storage with Expiration and Proper Label dated [DATE] documented the facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, orderly manner without expiration and with intact and appropriate label. 1) On [DATE] at 11:53 AM, Licensed practical Nurse (LPN) #2 was noted accessing medication stored in the 1st Floor nurse's station area…
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 · D2023-09-26 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey conducted on 09/20/2023 through 09/26/2023, the facility did not facilitate the inclusion of the resident and the resident's representative in the comprehensive care planning (CCP) process. This was evident for 1 of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #10's Health Care Proxy (HCP) was not invited to attend the resident's scheduled CCP meeting. The findings are: The facility policy titled CCP dated 7/18/2023 documented the residents or designated representative are invited to participate in the meetings via in person or phone call. Resident #10 had diagnoses of anemia ad hypertension. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #10 was severely cognitively impaired. On 09/25/23 at 12:28 PM and 3:26 PM, an interview was conducted with Resident #10's HCP who stated they do not recall receiving an invitation from the facility to attend the resident's CCP meeting in 8/2023. The CCP meeting…
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 · D2023-09-26 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 09/20/2023 to 09/26/2023, the facility did not ensure menus were followed. This was evident for 1 (Resident #28) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #28 did not receive lunch menu items that were listed on their tray ticket (TT) including melon, pork chop with gravy, grilled cheese sandwich, chicken salad, tossed salad with ¾ cup dressing, red skin potatoes, 1 slice Italian bread, 4-ounce peaches, and 1 package saltine crackers. The findings include: The policy titled Dining dated 07/18/2023 documented that residents receive the correct therapeutic diet. It is nursing's responsibility to ensure that the resident's tray has the proper therapeutic diet prior to delivering the tray to the resident. The policy titled Food Preferences dated 06/14/2023 documented the facility to ensure that each resident receives food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerance, preferences, and substitutes.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 9/20/2023 to 9/26/2023, the facility did not ensure infection control practices were maintained. This was evident for 1 (2nd Floor) of 6 Units observed for dining. Specifically, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on the 2nd Floor did not perform hand hygiene between serving residents their meal trays. The findings are: The facility policy titled Dining dated 7/18/2023 documented residents are served in a manner in compliance with infection control including handwashing and hygiene before and after meals. On 09/20/2023 at 12:07 PM, CNA #4 was observed in the 2nd floor Day room assisting residents with hand hygiene by using hand wipes before meal service. CNA #4 did not don gloves and assisted Resident #7 and then Resident #16 to clean their hands with hand wipes without performing hand hygiene in between each resident. CNA #5 was observed assisting Residents #40 and Resident #6 with hand hygiene using hand wipes without donning gloves and without performing hand hygiene in between…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews conducted during a recertification /complaint survey (NY00321529), The facility failed to ensure that an alleged violation involving resident to resident physical abuse was reported within a timely manner to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). This was evident for 1 of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, a resident-to-resident altercation that took place on 07/27/2023 was reported to the NYSDOH on 8/07/2023. The findings include: The facility policy titled Abuse Prevention dated 7/18/2023 documented the facility will report all incidents where abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and misappropriation of property is suspected to NYSDOH. A decision regarding reporting will be made based on the result of the investigation. Resident #161 had diagnoses of hyperlipidemia and dementia. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #161 was moderately cognitively impaired. Resident #182 had diagnoses of dementia and bipolar disorder. The Minimum…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-07-13 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, records review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey, the facility did not ensure residents' personal medical information was kept confidential. Specifically, a notice which documented room numbers, type of precaution, and type of infection was observed posted throughout the facility. This was evident for 4 of 4 residents who were on Transmission Based Precautions. (Residents # 390, #133, #690, & 391) The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Confidentiality of Information and Personal Privacy dated 03/10/2021 documented that the facility will protect and safeguard resident confidentiality and personal privacy. The policy further documented that posting the resident isolation status or Transmission Based Precaution in the interest of public health is permissible as long as the type of infection remains confidential. The facility's HIPPA Policy dated 3/10/21 documented that the facility must reasonably protect health information from any intentional or unintentional use or disclosure. On 07/09/2021 at 1:25 PM, a notice titled…
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 · E2021-07-13 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that necessary housekeeping services were provided to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Specifically, a corroded radiator cover, unpainted areas, mis-matched paint and water damage on the walls were observed in residents' rooms. This was evident in multiple rooms on 3 of 6 units. (Units 1, 2 & 3) The findings are: The facility policy and procedure for Environmental Services revised on 3/11/2021 documented it is the policy of [NAME] Nursing Home, to provide clean, contamination-free surroundings for residents, visitors, and personnel. A clean environment is essential in preventing transmission of infection in the facility .Needed repairs, leaky faucets, light bulbs, are to be reported to the Maintenance Supervisor for attention and repair. On 07/07/21 at 10:45 AM, mismatched paint was observed on the walls next to two beds in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 07/07/21 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 11 citations
- Potential for harm · E2021-07-13 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — patternEnsure 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
Based on record review, interviews and observations conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that resident is free from physical restraints imposed for discipline or staff convenience and not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. This was evident for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for Physical Restraints out of total sample of 38 residents (Residents #157, #35, and #110) The findings are: The facility's policy & procedure titled Physical Restraints revised on 3/12/2021 documented Oxford Nursing Home considers restraints to be a temporary care modality that is used to treat a particular Resident's medical symptom. The decision to restrain a Resident or discontinue the use of restraints is an on-going process, closely monitored and evaluated by Nursing staff, the Comprehensive care Plan (CCP) Team and the Physician. Prior to any decision to retrain a Resident, alternative measures will be used. 1. Resident #157 was admitted to facility with diagnoses which included Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Depression, 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 · E2021-07-13 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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, the facility did not ensure that each resident and resident representative was involved in developing the care plan and making decisions about their care. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that residents and resident representatives were afforded the opportunity to participate in the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) meeting. This was evident for 4 out of 6 residents reviewed for Participation in Care Planning. (Resident #52, #67, #22 and #143). The findings include: The facility policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Care Plan Meeting dated 03/03/2021 documented it is the facility's policy to encourage residents and families to participate in forming a plan of care. The policy also documented that the facility values the input of residents, family members, and community patterners to assure and achieve a good continuum of care best solution outcome and promote high-quality care. The policy further documented that during…
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 · E2021-07-13 · 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 and staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that food was stored and prepared in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, potentially hazardous cold foods were not maintained at the proper temperature (at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit). This was observed during the Kitchen Observation facility task. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Food Temperatures, revised on 03/10/2021, documented cold foods stay below 40 degrees Fahrenheit during the portioning, transportation, and service process until received by the resident. Normally cold food items will be well below 45 degrees when removed from cooling and must be kept below 40 degrees until served. The facility policy and procedure titled Handling Cold Foods For Trayline revised on 03/10/2021 documented at the time of service cold food items will be taken from the refrigerator one tray at a time to be used at the meal service (unless a reach-in refrigerator is available on meal service) and cold…
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 before2021-07-13 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, 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). blood pressure (BP) cuffs were not cleaned/disinfected after use between residents, 2). a housekeeping staff did not properly store and transport garbage while on the unit, and 3). a housekeeping staff did not don the required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) upon entering a room where transmission-based precautions were in place. This was evident during the Infection Control Tasks on 4 of 6 units. (Units 3, 4, 2 & 5) The findings are: 1.The facility policy titled Care of Equipment related to Blood Pressure Cuff revised on 03/12/2021 documented the following under the section titled procedure: 3. Deep cleaning of blood pressure cuff at beginning and end of shift should be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2021-07-13 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment is provided for staff and public. Specifically, the staff bathrooms and a resident bathroom were not maintained in good repair. This was observed on 3 of 6 resident units. (Unit 2, Unit 3 & Unit 4) The findings are: The facility policy & procedure titled Preventive Maintenance Program revised on 3/11/2021 documented it is the policy of [NAME] Nursing Home and the Maintenance Department to provide a hygienically clean environment by systemic inspection and preventive maintenance of all equipment, by established routines for repairs and by proper care of the entire physical structure of the institution. On 07/12/21 at 05:18 PM, the staff bathroom on Unit 3 has observed with mismatched paint on bathroom walls over toilet, a wooden/board plate behind sink, rusted protrusion on lower left wall below the sink, peeling ceilings, dusty walls, chipped…
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 · E2021-07-13 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake 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, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure it maintained an effective pest control program so that the facility is free of pests and rodents. Specifically, (1). One live rodent was noted in the dining area in the basement, and (2) one live brown colored roach about half an inch in length was noted in the nurse's station on the 5th Floor. This was evident on 1 of 6 units. (5th Floor) The findings are: The facility policy titled Insect and Rodent Control dated 03/11/2021 documents it is the facility policy to reduce the spread of infection and disease. The facility has in place an integrated Pest Management Program. The A & N Pest Control is contracted to assist in this program. All staff are instructed to report all roach and pest observations to the Director of Housekeeping and Nursing Supervisors. The sightings must also be entered into the maintenance log at nurse's station. The Extermination Service Report dated 1/05/2021 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 before2021-07-13 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during a recertification survey the facility did not ensure that based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident was provided. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that services were provided to a resident who required one to one (1:1) activities. This is evident for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Activities out of the sample of 38 residents. (Resident #44) The findings are: Resident #44 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Unspecified Dementia without behaviors disturbance, and Bipolar disorder, current episodes manic without psychotic features severe. On 07/08/21 at 01:19 PM, Resident #44 was observed on multiple…
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 · D2021-07-13 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and staff interview conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure timely identification and removal of expired medications from current medication supply. Specifically, expired medications were observed in the medication storage room. This was evident during the Medication Storage Task (Medication Storage Room/Nursing Office) The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Medication Storage last revised on 3/12/2021 documented medication will be stored in a manner that maintains the integrity of the product, ensures the safety of the residents and is accordance with New York State Department of Health guidelines .Expired, discontinued and or/contaminated medications will be removed from the medication storage areas and disposed accordingly. On 07/07/21 at 02:46 PM, an observation of the medication storage room on the 1st floor in the Nursing Office was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The following expired medications were observed in the current medication supply: - 1 Piperacillin and Tazobactam…
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 before2021-07-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that all medications and biologicals were stored and labeled properly. Specifically, medications were not labelled properly. This was evident during observations conducted for the Medication Storage Task. (3rd floor) The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Medication Storage revised on 3/12/21, documented that medication will be stored in a manner that maintains the integrity of the product ensures the safety of the residents and is accordance with the New York Department of Health Guidelines. On 07/12/21 at 04:58 PM, an observation was conducted of the medication cart on the 3rd floor. One plastic bag was observed with a vial of Novolin N in it. There was no open/discard date on the vial. The bag which contained the vial was dated 7/9/21. One plastic bag was observed with a Levemir insulin pen. The bag was dated 7/6/21. There was no open/discard date on the device. One bag was observed with a Basaglar insulin pen. The bag was dated 7/5/21. There 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 · D2021-07-13 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure each resident received food that accommodated resident allergies, intolerance, and preferences. Specifically, residents' food preferences were not honored. This was evident for 2 of 7 residents reviewed for Food out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident # 22 and Resident # 144) The findings include: The policy titled Food Preferences dated 03/10/2021 documented the facility to provide food preferences to resident while allowing residents to make point of service choices that reflect individualized, day to meal preferences as able. The policy also documented that food preferences are communicated to the Food Service Manager and/or Dietitian. Food Service Manager will provide food preferences as possible with the limitations of the facility and withing the dietary restrictions of the resident. Residents can change their food preferences as desired based on verbal and non-verbal cures of food acceptance…
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 · C2025-09-09 · tag F0640 — widespreadEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews, during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 comprehensive and quarterly assessments were submitted and transmitted into the Quality Improvement Evaluation System Assessment Submission and Processing system in a timely manner. Specifically, admission, annual, and quarterly assessments were not submitted and transmitted within 14 calendar days after the assessments were completed. This was evident for 43 of 54 residents reviewed for the Resident Assessment facility task.The findings include but are not limited to:The facility policy and procedure titled Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Completion and Submission Policy revised 06/26/2025 stated the facility will ensure all Minimum Data Set assessments are transmitted to the Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (QIES)/Internet Quality Improvement and Evaluation System (iQIES) within required timeframes. The policy also stated completed Minimum Data Set assessments must be electronically submitted to Internet Quality Improvement and Evaluation…
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. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2023-12-26 for 8 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESTATE OF LIVIA GOLDBERG | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 05/10/2019 |
| BRAUN, ROCHELLE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 03/31/1999 |
| GOLDBERG, SHULAMITH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 03/31/1999 |
| MOTECHIN, NORMAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 10% | since 10/01/1995 |
| BRAUNSTEIN, BARRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/1993 |
| GROSS, BENJAMIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/14/2022 |
| HAK, VIRENDER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $7.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% 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. 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 335163. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-09, 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.