Greene Meadows Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
161 Jefferson Heights, Catskill, NY 12414 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (518) 943-9380 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Jun 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (26) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (59%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 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 | 20.1% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 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 | 0.6% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 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 | 2.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.8% | 12.5% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.7% | 13.2% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.6% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.4% | 13.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.4% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.2% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.06 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.26 | 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.
46.8% 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 127 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.5% 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 55% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 46.8%CMS range 38.2–55.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.0%CMS range 6.1–12.5 | 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 | 64.5% | 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 | 67.7% | 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 | 64.5% | 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 | 95.7% | 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 | 1.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.8% | 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 | 5.9%CMS range 3.6–9.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 120 beds and averages 113.8 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.95 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.64 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.24 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 3.16 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.27 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.74 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 59% 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 3 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.
26 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 16 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-05 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews during a survey, the facility failed to ensure each resident was free from misappropriation of resident property and exploitation for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, an agency contracted staff person took Resident #1's driver's license, social security card, and bank debit card from their phone case and used the debit card to make purchases from the facility vending machine and a local store. Findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of cellulitis (a common, potentially serious bacterial infection of the skin and the deep underlying of right lower limb, osteoarthritis, and atrial fibrillation. The Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) dated 9/26/2023, documented the resident could be understood, could understand others and had intact cognition for decisions of daily living. The facility's Abuse Prevention and Investigation Policy last reviewed 8/2025 documented the facility prohibits the mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation/exploitation of 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 · D2026-06-05 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a survey, the facility failed to ensure a report of the results of all investigations to the administrator or their designated representative and to other officials in accordance with State law, including to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident, and if the alleged violation is verified appropriate corrective action must be taken for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility reported to The Department of Health a suspected misappropriation of Resident #1's personal property by facility staff on 9/26/2023. The results of the investigation and corrective actions were not submitted.Findings include:An undated facility document titled Facility Reported Incidents Follow-up Investigation Instructions documented, within 5 business days of the incident, the facility must provide in its report sufficient information to describe the results of the investigation, and indicate any corrective actions taken if the allegation was verified.Resident #1Resident #1 was admitted…
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 · E2023-09-14 · 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 observation and interviews during the recertification survey dated 09/07/2023 through 09/14/2023, the facility did not provide effective housekeeping services on three (3) of 3 resident units and the resident common areas. Specifically, the following ceiling tiles had water stains: 11 ceiling tiles had water stains in room [ROOM NUMBER], 5 ceiling tiles were stained in room [ROOM NUMBER], 2 tiles were stained in #140, 2 ceiling tiles were stained in the corridor outside of room [ROOM NUMBER], 6 were stained in the corridor outside of room [ROOM NUMBER], 5 ceiling tiles were stained by the first floor nurse station, 6 were stained in the Activities Room, 8 were stained in the corridor outside the Activities Room, 1 ceiling tile was stained in room [ROOM NUMBER], 2 in #215, 2 in #220, 3 in #242, 5 ceiling tiles were stained in the corridor outside of room [ROOM NUMBER], 9 in the corridor between room #s 207 and 220, 16 in the corridor between room #s 231 and 243, 25 ceiling tiles were stained by the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-14 · 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 dated 09/07/2023 through 09/14/2023, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, or served food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen and two (2) of 2 kitchenettes. Specifically, in the main kitchen, the facility did not have test papers to check the concentration of the chemical sanitizer in the low-temperature dishwashing machine, and the facility did not have test papers to check the concentration of quaternary ammonium compound (QAC) used to manually sanitize food contact equipment in the 3-compartment sink. In the main kitchen, the slicer was soiled with food particles; the kitchen floor, floor behind cooking equipment, and walk-in freezer floor were soiled with food particles and/or a black build-up; and the ceiling was soiled with black dust. In the One South kitchenette, the microwave oven, freezer door gasket, floor, waste receptacle, and countertop were soiled with food particles or dirt. In the Second Floor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-14 · tag F0813 — patternHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
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 dated 09/07/2023 through 09/14/2023, the facility did not ensure food brought for residents by family or visitors (food) was stored in a way that is either separate or easily distinguishable from facility food and was labeled according to the facility policy in two (2) of 2 kitchenettes. Specifically, in the One South Nourishment Station (kitchenette) refrigerator, an insulated bag containing cut watermelon, and cottage cheese did not have an identifying label with a name, date, or room number. In the Second Floor Kitchenette refrigerator, a restaurant entre labeled with a resident name and room number was not dated. This is evidenced is as follows: During observations on 09/07/2023 at 10:03 AM, in the One South Nourishment Station (kitchenette) refrigerator, an insulated bag containing cut watermelon and cottage cheese did not have an identifying label with a name, date, or room number. In the Second Floor Kitchenette…
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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and interview during the recertification survey on 9/7/2023 through 9/14/2022, the facility did not ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, in 2 (2 North and 2 South), of 2 dining rooms and 1 (Resident #3) observed. Specifically, residents in the 2 North and 2 South dining rooms waited for up to 31 minutes after their dining mates were served, for their meals to be served and for Resident #3, personal care was provided with an opened door, exposing the resident to anyone in the hallway. The findings are: Finding 1: The policy and procedure titled Food and Nutritional Services dated 7/18/2023 documented, meals will be provided in a timely manner so that hot foods are served hot and cold foods are served cold. A schedule of mealtimes was provided that documented the lunch meals were served to the units at the following times: 1 South at 12:05 PM 1 South at 12:30 PM 2 North at 12:15 PM 2 North at 12:40 PM 2 South at 12:25 PM 2…
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 · D2023-09-14 · 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 a recertification and abbreviated survey conducted on 9/7/2023 to 9/14/2023, the facility did not ensure that the results of the most recent survey of the facility conducted by Federal or State surveyors and any plan of correction in effect with respect to the facility was posted in a place readily accessible to residents, and family members and legal representatives of residents, and did not ensure to post notice of the availability of such reports in areas of the facility that are prominent and accessible to the public. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that the residents and staff knew where the survey report was located. This was evidenced by: During a meeting with a group of 6 residents on 9/7/2023 at 3:01 PM, the residents stated they did not know where the survey report was located. During an observation on 9/7/2023 at 4:15 PM, surveyors were not able to locate the survey results on the units and at the front desk. During an interview on 9/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, the receptionist at the front desk was unable to find the survey…
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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews conducted during the recertification and abbreviated survey (Case #NY00298115) the facility did not ensure prompt efforts were made to file and resolve a grievance concerning missing items and did not take appropriate timely corrective action in accordance with State Law for 1 (Resident #116) of 1 resident reviewed for grievances. Specifically, for Resident #116, the facility did not ensure they promptly acknowledged the resident's complaint regarding missing hearing aids and did not promptly make attempts to resolve the complaint. This was evidenced by: A document titled Grievance/Concern Form dated 10/2016 and revised 5/2018, 9/2017, 1/2020, 3/19/2021, and 10/28/2021 documented the following; Policy: Our facility will assist residents, their representatives, family members or resident advocates in filing a grievance/concern form or completing a review on the customer service kiosk when concerns are expressed, which may not be able to be handled immediately by the facility staff, requires further investigation, or requires consultation with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview conducted during the recertification survey dated 9/7/2023 through 9/14/2022, the facility did not ensure the development of comprehensive person-centered care plans, that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment, for 2 (Resident #s 19 and #80) of 30 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans (CCP). Specifically, for Residents #19 and #80, the facility did not ensure a CCP was developed to address the use of psychotropic medications and for Resident #80, did not ensure a CCP was person-centered. This was evidenced by The Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Care Planning Process and Care Conference dated 6/2023 documented the facility will develop a comprehensive, resident centered care plan for each resident based on the individual needs/problems of each resident. Resident #19 Resident #19 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of major depressive disorder, hypothyroidism, and generalized anxiety…
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 · D2023-09-14 · 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 a recertification survey on 9/7/2023 through 9/14/2023 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 residents' choices for 1 (Resident #12) of 30 residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #12, the facility did not ensure physician ordered Silvadene 1% topical cream was applied twice daily to right knee wound along with border gauze dressing completed in accordance with the physician order and comprehensive care plan and did not ensure the physician was notified when the medication was not applied and dressing not completed. This is evidenced by: Resident #12 was admitted with diagnoses of right knee joint infection, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral vascular disease (PVD). Resident #12 had a total knee replacement and subsequently developed post op infection, had three months of IV antibiotics, and a stage II revision. After the revision…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 16 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-14 · 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
Based on observation, record review and interviews, during a recertification survey and an abbreviated survey (Case #NY00317162) the facility did not ensure the residents environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible; and each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents in accordance with professional standards of practice, and the comprehensive person-centered care plan or 1 (Resident #214) of 30 residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #214 the facility did not ensure preparation of heated soup temperature was tested and served at a safe temperature resulting in a first degree burn to the resident's bilateral groin, blistering on their right hand and right thigh area. This is evidenced by: Resident #214 Resident #214 was admitted with the diagnoses of chronic osteomyelitis with draining sinus, right tibia fibula, mechanical loosening of the right knee prosthetic joint and lymphedema. The Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) dated 4/10/2023, documented the resident was cognitively intact, could understand others…
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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, interview, and record review conducted during a Standard survey completed 9/14/2023, the facility did not provide food and drink that were prepared by methods that conserved flavor, and appearance, were palatable and at a safe and appetizing temperature, for 3 (Units 1, 2 South, and 2 North) of 3 units. Specifically, food and beverages were served at suboptimal temperatures and were not palatable. Additionally, food temperatures were not obtained prior to serving meals. The findings are: The policy and procedure titled Food and Nutritional Services dated 7/18/2023 documented, meals will be provided in a timely manner so that hot foods are served hot and cold foods are served cold. A facility policy titled Food Temperatures, revised 6/20/2021, documented Hot food items may not fall below 135 degrees Fahrenheit after cooking. All cold food items must be maintained and served at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit or below. Temperatures should be taken periodically to assure hot foods stay…
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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews during the recertification survey dated 09/07/2023 through 09/14/2023, the facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Specifically, the dumpster cover was open exposing kitchen food waste stored within, the cover was heavily soiled with black grime, and the grounds around the dumpster were littered. This was evidenced as follows: During observations on 09/07/2023 at 11:08 AM, the dumpster cover was open exposing kitchen food waste stored within, the cover was heavily soiled with black grime, and the grounds around the dumpster were littered. During an interview on 09/07/2023 at 11:08 AM, the Director of Dietary Department stated that kitchen staff should have both kept the dumpster closed after filling and the litter picked up. The Director of Dietary Department stated that the maintenance department will be contacted about having the dumpster cleaned. During an interview on 09/07/2023 at 1:56 PM, the Director of Dietary Department stated that the dumpster is now closed, and the litter around the dumpster has been picked up. 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 · E2021-06-18 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review during a recertification survey the facility did not ensure pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) were provided to meet the needs of each resident for 2 (Resident #'s 53 and #57) of 4 residents reviewed. Specifically, for Resident #53, the facility did not ensure a medication prescribed to treat diabetic neuropathy was available to administer three times per day, and for Resident #57, the facility did not ensure nursing administration was notified when a physician's order to renew the resident's narcotic pain medication did not arrive from pharmacy and was not available for administration. This was evidenced by: Resident #53: Resident #53 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of diabetes due to underlying condition w/diabetic neuropathy, major depressive disorder, recurrent and fibromyalgia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE],…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-06-18 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the resident or the resident's representative was informed and provided written information regarding advance directive information nor was an dvance directive formulated for 1 (Resident #51) of 2 residents reviewed for Advance Directives. Specifically, for Resident #51, the facility did not ensure Advance Directives or code status of the resident was addressed upon admission or during the resident's nursing home stay. This was evidenced by: Resident #51: Resident #51 was admitted with diagnoses of unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, type 2 diabetes mellitus and thrombocytopenia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) dated 5/08/2021, documented the resident was cognitively intact. The resident was able to understand others and to be understood by others. A Social Services Note dated 5/10/2021 at 2:57 PM, documented the resident was admitted to the facility for respite care on 5/07/2021 through 5/28/2021. The resident lived at home with the spouse and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-06-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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, manufacturer's directions review, and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The safe and sanitary operation of a professional kitchen is to include particular methods of operation. Specifically, the automatic dishwashing machine (dish machine) was not operating within the manufacturer's specifications, a test kit was not provided to measure the parts per million (ppm) concentration of available chlorine used to sanitize tableware in the dish machine (chemical test kit), the concentration of chemical sanitizing rinse (QAC) was less than that required by the manufacturer, spray bottles and food containers were not labeled, sections of the floor and walls were not in good repair, and equipment, walls, and floor required cleaning. This is evidenced as follows. The kitchen was inspected on 06/14/2021 at 6:23 PM. The concentration of QAC used in the sanitizing rinse sink was found to be 500 parts per million (ppm) when…
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 before2021-06-18 · tag F0813 — isolatedHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the policy regarding foods brought to residents is in accordance with adopted regulations. Specifically, the facility does not have a policy that includes a procedure to ensure all residents have the necessary assistance in accessing and consuming food brought to them by visitors, and the facility does not provide information for family and other visitors on safe food handling practices or safe reheating of food that is brought in to residents. This is evidenced is as follows. The facility policy for food brought in by visitors was reviewed on 06/15/2021. This policy states that the Dietary Manager will give information to family and visitors on proper food handling to promote food safety. The policy did not include a procedure to assist residents that are unable to independantly access and consume food brought to them by visitors. The Food Service Director (Dietary Manager) stated in an interview on 06/15/2021 at 1:07 PM, that they do not provide information on safe food handling 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 · E2019-08-14 · 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 interviews and record review during a recertification survey, the facility did not develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that met professional standards of quality care for 7 (Residents #'s 1, 9, 21, 47, 53, 106 and #455) of 24 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. Specifically: For Resident #'s 1, 9, 21, 47, 53, and 106 the facility did not ensure the written summary of the baseline care plan was provided to the resident and/or resident representative; For Resident #455, who had a diagnosis of pneumonia, the facility did not ensure a baseline care plan was developed to address the resident's respiratory needs and that a summary was reviewed with the resident and/or residents' representative within 48 hours of admission. This is evidenced by Resident #9: The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. with the diagnoses of dementia, anxiety and dysphagia. The Minimum Data…
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 before2019-08-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview during the recertification survey the environment was not free from accident hazards over which the facility has control. Specifically, resident room wardrobes on 3 of 3 units were not secured from toppling. This is evidenced as follows. A selection of resident rooms on the First Floor, Second Floor North, and Second Floor Units were inspected on 08/08/2019 at 10:15 AM. The wardrobes in resident room #'s 125, 141, 210, 233, and #242 were free-standing and could topple over when tested with normal body weight. The Director of Maintenance stated in an interview on 08/08/2019 at 10:00 AM, that he understands that the unsecured wardrobes in resident rooms could cause an accident, and he will secure all the wardrobes to the wall. 10 NYCRR 415.12(h)(1)
- Potential for harm · E2019-08-14 · 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 observation, interview and record review during a recertification survey, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections determined for 2 (Resident #'s 15 and 87) of 2 residents. Specifically, the facility did not ensure standard precautions were maintained during a dressing change for Residents #'s 15 and 87. This is evidenced by: Resident #15: The resident was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and unspecified convulsions. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented the resident was moderately impaired for cognition, understood others and was usually understood by others. A Policy and Procedure for Non-Sterile Dresssing Change dated 08/2016 documented: - Prepare/open dressing item on the table. Open packages and cut tape. - Remove soiled dressing. Remove gloves, wash hands, apply new gloves. - Cleanse and dry the wound.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-14 · 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 interviews during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure the resident and/or resident representative were provided with timely and specific notification when the facility determined that the resident no longer qualified for Medicare Part A skilled services and the resident had not used all the Medicare benefit days for that episode for 3 (Resident's #13, 67, and #305) of 3 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notification. Specifically, for Resident #'s 13 and #67, the facility did not ensure the residents' or the residents' representatives were informed of the beneficiary's potential liability for payment and related standard claim appeal rights using the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN), form CMS-10055. Additionally, for Resident #'s 67 and #305, the facility did not ensure the beneficiary was issued the Notice to Medicare Provider Non-coverage (NOMNC), form CMS-10123, in a timely manner to inform the beneficiary of his or her right to an expedited review of a service termination. This is evidenced by:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-14 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure that residents and/or resident's representatives were notified in writing of the reason for the transfer/discharge to the hospital in a language they understand for two (Resident #21 and #455) of two residents reviewed for hospitalization. Specifically, for Resident #'s 21 and #455, the facility did not provide written notice of transfer/discharge to the residents and/or residents' representatives when the residents were transferred to the hospital, and the facility did not send a copy of the discharge notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. This is evidenced by: Resident #21: The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and diabetes mellitus (DM). The Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) dated 6/12/19 documented the resident was cognitively intact and was able 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 · D2019-08-14 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure two (Resident #21 and #455) of two residents reviewed for hospitalization received a bed hold policy notice upon transfer. Specifically, for Resident #'s 21 and #455, the facility did not ensure that the residents and/or the residents' representatives were notified in writing of the bed hold policy when the resident was transferred to the hospital. This is evidenced by: Resident #21: The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and diabetes mellitus (DM). The Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) dated 6/12/19, documented the resident was cognitively intact and was able to make self understood and understand others. A progress note dated 5/6/19 at 9:00 AM, documented the resident complained of trouble breathing. Physician updated and order received to send the resident to the emergency room, call placed 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 · D2019-08-14 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey the facility did not ensure comprehensive care plans (CCP) were reviewed and revised as necessary for 3 of 24 residents reviewed. Specifically, Resident #9's care plan was not revised after the diiscontinuation of an anticoagulant medication, Resident #47's careplan was not revised io include the resident's current level of assistance for care, and Resident #53's careplan was not revised to include interventions post fall. This was evidenced by: Resident #9: The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses of dementia, anxiety and right humeral and femoral fracture. The Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) dated 8/7/19, documented the resident was cognitively intact and was sometimes able to make herself understood and usually able to understand. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated August 2019, documented the resident received aspirin once daily for long term use of anticoagulants. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-14 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary 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 record review and interviews, the facility did not ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs, which was any drug used in excessive dose, for excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for its use, or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicated the dose should be reduced or discontinued for 1 (Resident #66) of 1 resident reviewed for anticoagulation medication. Specifically, for Resident #66, the facility did not ensure a physician order for Heparin injections (anticoagulation medication) had an adequate indication for use and did not ensure the resident was free from adverse, uncomfortable or unpleasant, consequences related to the administration of the injections which resulted in the resident's refusal of the medication. This is evidenced by: Resident #66: The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of atrial fibrillation, chronic pain, and diabetes. The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not store, prepare, distribute or serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Food preparation and serving areas are to be kept clean. Specifically, the ceiling and the exhaust fan guards in the main kitchen were not clean. This is evidenced as follows. The main kitchen was inspected on 08/08/2019 at 8:35 AM. The ceiling tiles by the exhaust hood were heavily soiled with grease. The exhaust fan guards over the grill line were covered in a slight buildup of grease and one guard was missing. The Director of Food Service stated in an interview on 08/08/2019 at 10:35 AM, that the ceiling tiles in the kitchen are extremely greasy and should be replaced. Additionally, he stated that staff will clean the exhaust fan guards, and he will order an additional guard for the exhaust hood. 10 NYCRR 415.14(h); Chapter 1 State Sanitary Code Subpart 14-1.90, 14-1.110, 14-1.170
“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 JONATHAN BLEIER — 18 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
The other 17 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLEIER, JONATHAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 37% | since 10/09/2014 |
| SOD, YAAKOV | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 10% | since 10/09/2014 |
| ZBYTNIEWSKI, TODD | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2015 |
| FUCHS, BERNARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/09/2014 |
| PECKMAN, BRUCE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/09/2014 |
| MALIANGOS, NICOLET | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $969K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 335574. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-09-14, 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.