Carthage Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing
1045 West Street, Carthage, NY 13619 · For profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (315) 493-3220 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (69%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 1 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 | 12.5% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.0% | 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 | 1.1% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.3% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.6% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.1% | 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 | 6.9% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.3% | 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 | 79.0% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.8% | 9.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.24 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 4.01 | 1.36 | 1.80 | worse |
§ 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.
50.1% 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 115 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.2% 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 93 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 50.1%CMS range 39.3–59.6 | 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 7.2–14.0 | 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 | 60.2% | 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 | 47.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 52.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 98.2% | 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 | 2.0% | 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 | 1.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.1–9.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 90 beds and averages 87.0 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.25 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.88 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.41 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.59 on weekdays — 33% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 69% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-09-26 · 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 record review, observation, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00348460) surveys conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 2 of 2 resident units (North and South units) reviewed. Specifically, the South unit common area had a stained carpet, four burned out lights, a broken light fixture, the unit shower was missing floor and wall tiles, and the dining room countertop was damaged; the North unit resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a dirty floor mat that smelled of mildew and cobwebs on the wall. Findings include: The facility policy, Cleaning/Disinfecting Resident Care Items and Equipment, revised 3/13/2024, documented reusable resident care items and equipment would be cleaned and disinfected according to the current Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations for disinfection of healthcare facilities. The facility policy, Environmental Services: Vacuuming Carpets,…
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 before2024-09-26 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident received food and drink that was palatable, flavorful, and at an appetizing temperature for 3 of 3 meals (the 9/24/2024 lunch meal, the 9/25/2024 special Fall festival meal, and the 9/25/2024 lunch meal) reviewed; for 7 of 7 anonymous residents present at the Resident Council meeting; and for 2 additional residents interviewed (Residents #178 and #180). Specifically, the 9/24/2024 and 9/25/2024 lunch meals were not flavorful; the 9/25/2024 Fall festival meal was not served at palatable and appetizing temperatures; 7 of 7 anonymous residents at the Resident Council meeting stated the food was often not appetizing and served cold; and 2 residents (Resident #178 and #180) stated the food was not flavorful and was served cold. Findings include: The facility policy, Rapid Cooling of Food, revised 1/2023, documented temperature control for food safety would be maintained at a temperature greater than 135 degrees Fahrenheit or cooled to a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-26 · 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 during the recertification survey conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 main kitchen. Specifically, in the main kitchen food was not maintained at proper temperatures, there was outdated food, and the dishwasher was not in proper working order. Findings include: The facility policy, Cleaning Standards, revised 1/2023, documented high standards of cleanliness and sanitation would be defined and maintained. Cleaning was defined as the use of water, chemicals, and elbow grease to remove all food and debris from equipment and work services. Sanitizing was the use of chemicals or temperature to kill microorganisms remaining on surfaces after they have been cleaned. The facility policy, Food Storage, revised 5/10/2024 documented sufficient food storage facilities were provided to keep foods safe, wholesome, and appetizing. Food would be stored in an area that was clean, dry, and free from…
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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not provide the appropriate liability and appeal notices to Medicare beneficiaries for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #72) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #72 remained in the facility after discontinuation of Medicare Part A services and the facility did not provide the resident with a Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-10055) for Medicare Part A as required. Findings include: The facility policy, Notice- Advances Beneficiary Notice, dated 7/2019 documented the Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage was to be issued by the facility where Medicare payment was expected to be denied. The notice must be provided within enough time to provide the beneficiary enough time to make an informed decision on whether or not to continue to receive services and accept potential financial liability not covered by Medicare. The notice must give a brief explanation why the beneficiary's needs did not meet…
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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0660 — isolatedPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure the discharge needs of each resident were identified and resulted in the development of a discharge plan for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #54) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #54 expressed the intention to be discharged to an assisted living facility and was not assisted with discharge planning or updated on the status of their discharge plan. Findings include: The facility policy, Discharge-Planning, revised 12/2019, documented the discharge planning process ensured residents had a discharge plan of continuing care that met their post-discharge needs and a goal of a safe and successful transition to the community, a lower level of care, or alternate healthcare facility. The Social Worker was responsible for the duties of Discharge Coordinator. The Discharge Coordinator developed a discharge plan that began on admission for each resident, initiated all necessary referral for post discharge care and needs, and documented the steps taken for…
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 before2024-09-26 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00348460 and NY00345485) surveys conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #15 and #43) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #43 was not assisted with removing unwanted facial hair, and Resident #15 had unkept hair and unclean and untrimmed fingernails. Findings include: The facility policy, Activities of Daily Living Care and Support, revised 3/13/2024, documented activities of daily living care and support would be provided for residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living independently, in accordance with the resident's assessed needs, personal preferences, and individualized plan of care, that included but was not limited to supervision and assistance with: hygiene, mobility, elimination, dining, and communication. Nail care would be provided as needed for…
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 · D2024-09-26 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #178) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #178's urinary catheter (tube that drains urine) drainage bag was observed above the level of the bladder. Findings include: The facility policy, Urinary Catheter Guidelines, revised 9/11/2023, documented care was provided to residents with indwelling urinary catheters to prevent, reduce the reoccurrence, manage, and resolve urinary tract infections. The urinary catheter drainage bag should be positioned below the level of the bladder and should not touch the floor. Resident #178 had diagnoses including urinary tract infections and chronic kidney disease. The 9/19/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact, had an indwelling urinary catheter, and had a urinary tract…
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 before2024-09-26 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure residents with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standard of practice, to promote wound healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #66 and #369) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #66 developed three facility acquired pressure ulcers, one vascular wound (caused by poor blood circulation) and had a low loss air mattress (specialty mattress used to relieve pressure and provide airflow) that was not accurately set to the resident's weight, and the resident was not turned and repositioned as care planned. Resident #379 had a foot wound and did not have their foot offloaded as planned. Findings include: The facility policy, Support Surfaces- Air mattress, created 2/2019, documented the facility provided an environment of care that promoted the highest quality of care and comfort for the residents. This included the treatment and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-26 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews, during the recertification survey conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure residents with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #7 and #15) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #15 and #7 resting palm (hand) guards were not applied appropriately as recommended by occupational therapy for hand and finger contractures (shortening of muscle or tendons preventing normal movement). Findings include: The facility policy, Appliances- Splints, Braces, Slings, revised 4/2019 documented to protect the safety and well-being of residents, and to promote quality care, the facility used appropriate techniques and devices for appliances, splints, braces, and slings; nursing would ensure certified nurse aide staff knew the proper application and removal of appliances; and nursing would ensure the appropriate sign off of appliance task options. 1) Resident…
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 before2024-09-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00321293 and NY00321801) surveys conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident received adequate supervision for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for falls. Specifically, Resident #1 was transferred without the use of a lift device as planned. The facility policy, Therapy Services, created 10/12/2021, documented therapy services would conduct a comprehensive patient centered evaluation which included the development of a plan of care with appropriate interventions to reach specified resident goals. The facility policy, Lift-Full Body Mechanical Lift, last reviewed 8/20/2023, documented at a minimum, two trained staff members were needed to safely move a resident with a floor based full body mechanical lift. Resident #1 had diagnoses included a left femur (thigh bone) fracture and frequent falls. The 8/2/2024 Minimum Data Set assessment documented the resident had moderately impaired…
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 21 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-26 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure that residents who required dialysis services (filtration of blood when the kidneys do not work) received such services consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #17) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #17 received hemodialysis treatments at a community-based dialysis center and did not have on-going assessments and oversight before and after dialysis treatments. Additionally, staff documented the resident had an arteriovenous fistula (surgical connection between an artery and a vein often used for dialysis access) which the resident did not have. Findings include: The facility policy, Dialysis Access Care, revised 5/2019, documented the central catheter (a tube inserted into a large, central vein) site was kept clean and dry at all times and bathing and showering were not permitted with this device. Catheter lumens (outside ends of the catheter) were capped and clamped when not in use. The general…
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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 9/23/2024-9/26/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident received and the facility provided food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #383) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #383 had a physician order for a nectar thick consistency for all liquids and was served thin liquids. Findings include: The facility policy, Modified Food Consistency Policy, reviewed 2/2023, documented diets were individualized with modifications made by the speech/language pathologist and physician in conjunction with the registered dietitian or designee and Director of Food Services. A written order was required. The food and nutritional services department was responsible for preparing and serving the diet texture and fluid consistency as ordered. The facility diet manual documented nectar thick liquids consistency was syrup like and coated a spoon. Resident #383 had diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (a progressive neurological disease) and dysphagia (difficulty…
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 · D2024-02-23 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview during the abbreviated survey (NY00312672), the facility did not provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation to residents to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #6) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #6 was discharged without a documented discharge plan. Additionally, there were recommendations for equipment and post-discharge services there were not established by the facility prior to discharge. Findings include: The Discharge Planning policy revised 12/2019 documented the facility will develop a comprehensive discharge plan for all residents being discharged . The social worker will be responsible for the duties of discharge coordinator including: - participate in an interdisciplinary team discharge meeting with the resident and/or their representative. - Initiate all necessary referrals for all necessary post-discharge care and needs, including primary care physician, medical equipment, in-home…
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 · E2023-12-08 · 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
Based on record review and interview during the abbreviated survey (NY00328705) the facility did not provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 1 of 2 nursing units (South Unit) reviewed. Specifically, the heat stopped working on the South Unit on 11/22/2023 and was not restored until 11/24/2023. During the time the heat was not functional, there was no documented evidence the facility routinely monitored and addressed cold air temperatures and no documented evidence a consistent plan was implemented to ensure resident comfort was maintained. Findings include: On 11/24/2023, a call was received to the nursing home complaint hotline from Resident #1 who reported the heat had been off in their wing for 3 days and they overheard staff say the heat would not be fixed until Monday (11/27/2023). During an interview on 11/26/2023 at 6:45 PM, the Administrator stated the heat stopped working during the evening of 11/23/2023. Maintenance staff tried to fix it and could not so a vendor came onsite and fixed it by mid-afternoon 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 · D2023-12-08 · tag F0836 — isolatedEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview during the abbreviated survey (NY00328705) the facility did not operate and provide services in compliance with Federal, State, and Local Laws and Professional Standards for 1 of 2 nursing units (South Unit) reviewed. Specifically, the heat stopped working on the South Unit on 11/22/2023 and was not restored until 11/24/2023 and the facility did not report the outage to the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) as required. Findings include: On 11/24/2023, a call was received to the nursing home complaint hotline from Resident #1 who reported the heat had been off in their wing for 3 days and they overheard staff say the heat would not be fixed until Monday (11/27/2023). During an interview on 11/26/2023 at 6:45 PM, the Administrator stated the heat stopped working during the evening of 11/23/2023 and it was fixed by mid-afternoon on 11/24/2023 on the South Unit. The facility's TimeLine of Event completed by the Administrator documented the date of the event was 11/24/2023 and type of event was a Heating Issue - Problem with Boiler - 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 before2023-03-16 · 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 record review, observation, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/12/23-3/16/23, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 33 of 50 resident rooms (rooms 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 208, 209, 211, 215, 216, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, and 228) and for 3 resident common areas (north unit shower room, smoke door near resident room [ROOM NUMBER], and the corridor between the main kitchen access door and the dining room). Specifically, there were unclean and/or damaged floors and walls in 33 resident rooms, and in 3 common areas. Findings include: The following observations were made on 3/12/23: - at 12:00 PM the north unit shower room door frame was damaged and was not secured to the wall. There was a 2 foot x 6 inch damaged area at the bottom of the wall near the shower room. - at 12:39 PM, both windows in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a blanket taped over…
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 before2023-03-16 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 and abbreviated (NY00271814, NY00301775, and NY00288954) surveys conducted 3/12/23-3/16/23, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 2 of 18 residents (Residents #6 and 73) reviewed and an additional 7 residents (Residents #14, 18, 19, 25, 29, 37, and 58) observed. Specifically, Resident #73 was not assisted with incontinence care, was not provided oral care, and was not provided a shower as scheduled; Resident #6 was not assisted with placement of their dentures for eating; and Residents #14, 18, 19, 25, 29, 37, and 58 were observed in bed wearing hospital gowns during the lunch meal. Findings include: The facility policy, ADL Support revised 10/2019 documented appropriate care and services would be provided to residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily…
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 · E2023-03-16 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00288954) surveys conducted 3/12/23-3/16/23 the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 3 of 10 residents (Residents #6, 19, and 73) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). Specifically, Residents #6, 19, and 73 did not have their ADL needs addressed timely. During a confidential group meeting (resident council) residents stated they had to wait 3-4 hours in the morning for assistance with ADLs. This was a result of insufficient staff to care for all 88 residents in the facility. Findings include: Cross reference to citation F 677 (Activities of Daily Living) The facility policy Staffing Hours revised on 4/2019 documented the facility provided adequate staffing to meet the needed care and services for their resident population. Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) were available on each shift to provide the needed care and services to each…
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 before2023-03-16 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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, observation, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/12/23-3/16/23, the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 3 of 3 meals reviewed (3/13/23, 3/14/23, and 3/15/23 lunch meal trays). Specifically, lunch meals test trays on 3/13/23, 3/14/23, and 3/15/23 were not served at palatable and appetizing temperatures. Findings include: The facility policy Food Temperatures reviewed 1/2023, documented that all hot food was required to be served at 140 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or higher. During an observation on 3/13/23 at 12:28 PM, a meal tray arrived to resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The tray was tested and a replacement tray for the resident was requested. At 12:30 PM the food temperatures were measured and included: French fries 115 F and corn 117 F. The French fries and corn were not served at palatable temperatures. The French fries were soft 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 · E2023-03-16 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 3/12/23-3/16/23, the facility failed to ensure they were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relayed the call directly to a staff member for 16 of 50 resident rooms (rooms 101, 105, 106, 108, 110, 113, 119, 121, 207, 214, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, and 227); and for 13 of 28 residents (Resident #11, 14, 17, 19, 25, 30, 36, 37, 41, 58, 69, 236, and 387) reviewed. Specifically, resident rooms 101, 105, 106, 108, 110, 113, 119, 121, 207, 214, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, and 227 call bells were not properly installed and/or not long enough for resident use; and Residents #11, 14, 17, 19, 25, 30, 36, 37, 41, 58, 69, 236, and 387 were observed with call bells that were not in reach. Findings include: The facility policy Call Bells revised 8/2019 documented providing timely response to residents in need was essential to ensuring high quality resident outcomes.…
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 · D2023-03-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 3/12/23-3/16/23, the facility failed to ensure the right to reside and receive services with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #385) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #385 was observed on multiple occasions lying in a bed that was too short for their height with both of their heels pressed up against the footboard of the bed. Findings include: The facility policy Assistive Devices revised 8/2019 documented requests or the need for special equipment should be referred to the appropriate department to obtain equipment for the resident. Resident #385 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including unstageable (full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is unable to be visualized) pressure ulcers of the left and right heels and diabetes mellitus (DM). The 3/2/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required total assistance of 2 for bed mobility and transfers, 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 · D2023-03-16 · tag F0577 — isolatedAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/12/23-3/16/23, the facility failed to post in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, and to legal representatives of residents, the results of the most recent survey of the facility conducted by Federal or State surveyors and any plan of correction with respect to the facility. Specifically, the survey results and plan of correction for the most recent Life Safety Code Federal survey conducted on 6/24/21 were not available for examination. Findings include: During an observation on 3/14/23 at 9:15 AM, the survey result binder located in the main lobby included the results from the 6/24/21 Federal Health Recertification Survey. The results from the 6/24/21 federal Life Safety Code Survey and the corresponding plan of correction were not included in the binder. During an interview on 3/14/23 at 9:15 PM, the Administrator stated the plan of corrections for the Health Recertification Survey and the Life Safety Code Survey from the last federal survey in 2021 were required to be publicly…
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 before2023-03-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00283545 and NY00271814) conducted 3/12/23-3/16/23, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #11 and 25) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #11 had a physician order for nectar thick liquids and aspiration (inhaling food/fluid into lungs) precautions and was observed with thin liquids at their bedside and was not supervised during meals; Resident #29 was on aspiration precautions with altered diet consistency and was observed eating unsupervised in bed in their room and required assistance of 2 for transfers and was observed being transferred by one. Findings include: The facility policy Aspiration Precautions revised 2/2019, documented residents must be supervised for all intake, solid or liquid. The facility policy Modified Food Consistency updated…
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 · D2023-03-16 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 3/12/23 - 3/16/23 the facility failed to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs for 2 of 2 meals observed. Specifically, Resident #19 was not provided with a nutritional supplement for 2 lunch meals as planned. Findings include: Resident #19 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia, anemia, and depression. The 1/6/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident had severely impaired cognition and required limited assistance at meals. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) initiated 11/11/20 documented the resident had a nutritional problem related to malnutrition and a low BMI (body mass index, a measure of weight compared to height). Interventions added on 3/15/21 included Magic Cup at lunch and ice cream at dinner (Magic Cup at dinner was not documented). A progress note by registered dietitian (RD) #26 dated 1/9/23 documented the resident was to receive a Magic Cup…
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 before2021-06-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 and abbreviated surveys (NY00275626, NY00275702, and NY00276385) conducted on 6/22/21-6/24/21, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming for 3 of 8 residents (Residents #7, 39, and 329) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #7 was not assisted with dressing, oral hygiene, and eye wear cleaning. Resident #329 was not assisted with nail care and Resident #39 was not provided with facial grooming or nail care. Findings include: The activity of daily living (ADL)/Personal Hygiene Policy, updated 10/2019, documented the purpose of the procedure is to direct nursing staff and meet the resident's individual needs per the plan of care and [NAME] (care instructions) on a daily basis. 1) Resident #7 had diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, adult failure to thrive, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The 5/27/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
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 · D2021-06-24 · tag F0635 — isolatedProvide doctor's orders for the resident's immediate care at the time the resident was 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 record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00276793) conducted on 6/22/21-6/24/21, the facility did not ensure physician orders for the resident's immediate care were in place on admission for 1 of 7 (Resident #279) residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #279 arrived to the facility from the hospital and did not have admission orders, including medication and dietary orders, obtained and implemented timely after admission. Findings include: The 8/2019 Admission/readmission Policy documents prior to or at the time of admission, the facility must be provided with the following information for the immediate care of the resident, including orders covering at least: diet, medications, including a medical condition or problem associated with each medication, and routine care orders to maintain or improve the resident's function until the physician and the IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) Care Planning team can conduct a comprehensive assessment and develop a more…
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 before2021-06-24 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted on 6/22/21-6/24/21, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #329) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #329 was at low risk for skin impairments, developed a reddened area, was not reassessed, and pressure injury prevention interventions were not re-evaluated. Findings include: The 4/2019 Wound Ulcer policy documented all caregivers were responsible for preventing, caring for, and providing treatment for skin alterations. Staff will institute a plan for any resident who has potential for skin breakdown or whose condition is deteriorating. This may include floating areas of concern such as heels when appropriate. Nurse aides will compete body audits at least weekly, but preferable with every bathing opportunity. The facility's 10/2019…
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 before2021-06-24 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted on 6/22-6/24/21, the facility did not ensure a resident with limited range of motion (ROM) received appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility with the maximum practicable independence unless a reduction in mobility was demonstrably unavoidable for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #52) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #52 was provided rehabilitation and gained the ability to walk, and the facility did not ensure a plan was implemented to maintain the resident's mobility. Findings include: The 10/2015 Assistive Devices policy documented devices and equipment that assist with resident mobility, safety and independence are provided for residents. These include, but are not limited to: wheelchairs, walkers and canes. Recommendations for the use of the equipment are based on comprehensive assessment and documented in the resident's plan of care. Resident #52 had diagnoses including stroke, right sided hemiplegia (paralysis), and bone infection of the right ankle…
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 · D2021-06-24 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00275702) conducted on 6/22/21-6/24/21, the facility did not ensure a resident with an indwelling catheter received the necessary services and treatment for catheter use for 1 of 2 (Resident #63) residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #63 did not have an order in place for a catheter, the resident's catheter leaked frequently and the leaking was not addressed timely by the facility. Findings include: The Catheter Care policy, updated 5/2019, documented it was in place to prevent catheter associated urinary tract infections and provided required care of residents who have an indwelling Foley catheter. The 8/2019 Catheter Guidelines policy documents if breaks in aseptic technique, disconnection, or leakage occur replace the catheter and collecting system using aseptic technique and sterile equipment as ordered. The facility's policy does not document restrictions on types of catheters used by residents in the facility nor the facility's inability to change certain catheters.…
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 · D2021-06-24 · tag F0810 — isolatedProvide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted on 6/22/21-6/24/21, the facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them and appropriate assistance to ensure that the resident can use the assistive devices when consuming meals and snacks for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #329) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #329's adaptive cup(s) were not provided at meals. Findings include: The facility's 8/2019Assistive Devices policy documented the facility provides, maintains, trains and supervises the use of assistive devices and equipment for the residents. Resident #329 had diagnoses including stroke, reduced mobility, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The 6/18/21 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was mildly impaired cognitively and did not lose fluids from their mouth when eating but held food in mouth/cheeks after meals and complained of difficult or painful swallowing. The 6/14/21 physician's order documented speech language pathology (SLP) for 3-5 days a week for up to 4…
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 · D2021-06-24 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview during the recertification survey conducted on 6/22/21-6/24/21, the facility did not maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 1 of 23 residents (Resident #39) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #39's plan of care documented to provide an edema glove to the resident's left hand, the glove was no longer required, was not removed from the plan of care, and staff continued to document the glove was provided when it was unavailable for use. Findings include: The facility's 10/2019 Charting and Documentation policy documented all services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's condition shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care. Resident #39 had diagnoses including cerebral infarct (stroke), aphasia (loss of ability 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.
“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 | 1 of 5 | 2.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABRAMCHIK, AMIR | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/01/2022 |
| ROZENBERG, KENNETH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | 97% | 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 |
| KLINGER, BARRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/05/2022 |
| ROGOWSKI, JERZY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.
About 72% 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 $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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 335579. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-09-26, 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.