Elmhurst Care Center, Inc,
100 17 23rd Avenue, East Elmhurst, NY 11369 · For profit - Corporation · 240 certified beds · (718) 205-8100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 improved from 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.4% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.7% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 47.3% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.2% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.2% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.7% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.9% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.6% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.5% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.1% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 79.7% | 78.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.3% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 1.3% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.40 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.41 | 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.
14.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 168 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.5% 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 120 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 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% 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 | 14.6%CMS range 10.3–22.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.6%CMS range 8.1–14.6 | 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 | 77.5% | 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 | 71.7% | 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 | 59.2% | 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 | 67.7% | 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 | 56.5% | 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 | 56.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.2%CMS range 6.0–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.39 | 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 240 beds and averages 230.2 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 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 2.99 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.29 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-03 · 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 interview during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that housekeeping and maintenance services were maintained. Specifically: 1) Seating furniture in resident room and in the common area were stained, soiled and faded. 2) Holes in the ceiling and walls in the staff bathroom and clean linen closet. 3) Dining room tables were wobbly. 4) Dining room walls and ceiling with dried food particles and stains. 5) Missing window panels. 6) Mechanical lifts, scales layered with accumulation of dust and dirt. 7) Wheelchairs with torn armrest and torn back sides. 8) Window blinds missing vertical panels. This was evident for three (3) of (6) six resident units. (units 4, 5 and 6). The findings are: The following was observed during the initial unit observations and subsequent dates on 06/26/24 at 10:37 AM on the 4th floor and on 06/27/19 at at 7:18 AM on the 5th fl and 06/28/24 at 8:01 AM on the 6th floor. 4th floor unit: Resident scale layered with dirt and stains which was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-03 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview during the re-certification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident was treated with dignity and cared for in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life. Specifically, the physical therapist assistant was observed holding up the residents oversized red sweat pants during floor ambulation. This was evident for one (1) of one (1) resident reviewed for Dignity (Resident #10). The finding is: The facility policy reviewed April 2024, titled, Dignity: Quality of Life, documented, Encouraging and assisting residents to dress in their own clothes (according to season and appropriately fitting). Resident #10 was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, but not limited to Major Depressive Disorder, Dementia and Schizophrenia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS), Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 03/21/2024, documented that the resident had clear speech and was usually understood 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 before2024-07-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during the Recertification Survey, the facility did not ensure that a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed and implemented for each resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 134) of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, ) Resident #134 had no care plan in place for antibiotic therapy. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Care Planning, with the last revised date of March 2024, documented that the registered nurse coordinator is responsible for seeing that the comprehensive care plan correlates with the care area assessment. The care plan must be kept current, and problems well stated. Resident #134 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that include Respiratory Failure and Hypertension. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #134's cognition as severely impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 6. A Physician Order dated 06/24/2024…
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 · E2024-07-03 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated survey (NY00342009) from 6/26/24 to 7/03/24, the facility did not ensure that there was sufficient nursing staff to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, 1) the facility reported short staffing on weekends confirmed by a review of the Daily Staffing and the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report, and 2) multiple nursing staff members reported a lack of sufficient staffing. The findings include but are not limited to: The Facility Staffing policy reviewed March 2024 documented it is the policy of this facility to provide sufficient staffing to meet the needs of all residents. The Facility Assessment tool dated 11/28/23 did not provide a staff to resident ratio for comparison and did not provide the number of staff required to work on each of the units. The New York State Department of Health Intake #NY00342009 dated 5/13/2024…
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 · E2024-07-03 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not ensure that the nurse staffing information was posted appropriately. Specifically, the posting of daily nurse staffing information was not posted in a prominent area which was readily accessible to residents and visitors. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Staff Posting Policy reviewed March 2024 documented the daily nursing patterns will be posted daily and updated by shifts in front of the nursing supervisor's office to ensure prominent placement to allow accessibility to all residents and visitors of the facility. During observations conducted on 06/26/2024, 06/27/2024, 06/28/2024, 07/01/2024, and 07/02/2024, the State Surveyor was unable to locate the postings of the daily nurse staffing levels for each shift or any signage instructing residents or visitors where it was located. On 07/02/2024 at 2:50 PM, the State Surveyor asked the Staffing Coordinator where the staffing information was located and was shown the posting…
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 · E2022-09-27 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview conducted during the Recertification survey from 9/19/22 to 9/27/22, the facility did not ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Assessments were electronically transmitted to the Centers of Medicare/Medicaid Services Data System (CMSDS) within 14 days of completion. Specifically, thirty two (32) Resident MDS Assessments triggered as being over 120 days old. This was evident for, but not limited to, Resident # 51; Resident #34; Resident #13; Resident #10; Resident #12; and Resident # 48. The findings are: The facility's undated Nursing Standards Policies & Procedures protocol Assessment Minimum Data Set 3.0, documented, the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services has specified a resident assessment for use in nursing facilities called the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0. The MDS 3.0 is used for conducting comprehensive resident assessment at defined timeframes. 1) Resident #51 was admitted on [DATE]. Per CMS Submission Report MDS 3.0 NH Final Validation Report, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-09-27 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 staff interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 9/19/22 to 9/27/22, the facility did not ensure that a resident was cared for in a manner that maintained or enhanced their dignity. Specifically, a resident's Foley catheter bag and tubing were not covered. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Dignity out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident # 67) The findings are: The Facility's Policy titled 'Foley Catheter- Indwelling' reviewed April 2022, documented that it is the Policy of Elmhurst Care Center to prevent infection to those residents who has indwelling urinary catheters. Catheters will be cared and monitored as often as possible. The Policy also documented that indwelling Foley catheter drainage bag will be placed inside a cover/liner bag to prevent to prevent direct contact of the drainage bag in the floor that can cause infection. Resident # 67 was admitted with diagnoses which included Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) and Prostate Cancer. 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 · D2022-09-27 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview conducted during a Recertification survey from 9/19/22 to 9/27/22, the facility did not ensure that each portion of the MDS assessment accurately reflect the resident's status. Specifically, the most recent MDS did not accurately document that the resident had a diagnosis of Psychosis as documented in the psychiatric consultant notes and physician's orders. This was evident for 1 of 6 residents investigated for Unnecessary Medication out of 38 sampled residents. (Resident # 198). The findings are: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Long-Term Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.17.1 dated October 2019 documented check the following information sources in the medical record for the last 7 days to identify active diagnoses: transfer documents, physician progress notes, recent history and physical, recent discharge summaries, nursing assessments, nursing care plans, medication sheets, doctor's orders, consults and official diagnostic reports, and other sources as available. 1.Resident #198 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 · Dcited before2022-09-27 · 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 interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 9/19/22 to 9/27/22, the facility did not ensure that a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment was developed. Specifically, a care plan was not developed to address a resident's pacemaker. This was evident for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications out of sample of 38 residents (Resident #162). The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Care Planning reviewed April 2022 documented all long-term care residents will be reviewed, as necessary, and at intervals not to exceed 90 residents day. At these quarterly meetings (or subsequent review) the responses to the current plan of care and the establishment of new goals and treatment plans are executed. Resident # 162 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Rheumatoid Arthritis, Coronary Artery Disease - Status Post (S/P) Pacemaker…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-09-27 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews during the Recertification survey from 9/19/2022 to 9/27/2022, the facility did not ensure a resident with limited range of motion (ROM) and mobility received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and or to prevent further decrease in range of motion. Specifically, a left ankle foot orthosis (AFO) and a left wrist hand and finger orthotic device were not provided to the resident as per physician order. This was evident in 1 of 4 residents reviewed for Position, Mobility and 1 of 6 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living out of 34 sampled residents. (Resident #3 and #74). The finding is: The facility policy titled Assistive/Adaptive Devices revised 4/2022 documented the following: It is the policy of Elmhurst Care Center to provide assistive/adaptive devices for residents who presents with decreased motor functioning that impairs the ability to use their extremities. Staff will make sure that applications of devices are…
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 · D2019-12-05 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, the facility did not ensure that services provided, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan, met professional standards of quality. Specifically: (1) A resident with a Gastrostomy Tube (GT) and Nothing by Mouth (NPO) order was given water by mouth. (2) Insulin was not administered as ordered (Resident #200). This was evident for 2 of 38 sampled residents (Resident #221 and #200). The findings are: 1.) Resident # 221 was admitted with diagnoses that included: Dysphagia, Vascular Dementia, and Malignant Neoplasm of the Colon. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment Reference Date 10/27/2019, documented the resident had severely impaired cognition. The MDS further documented the resident received tube feeding for nutrition and hydration. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for Tube feeding documented that, the resident requires tube feeding due to inability to intake nutrition orally due to dysphagia. On 12/01/19 at 11:43…
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 · D2019-12-05 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices. Specifically: (1) A resident with a Gastrostomy Tube (GT) and Nothing by Mouth (NPO) order was given water by mouth. (2) Insulin was not administered as ordered (Resident #200). This was evident for 2 of 38 sampled residents (Resident #221 and #200). The findings are: 1.) Resident # 221 was admitted with diagnoses that included: Dysphagia, Vascular Dementia, and Malignant Neoplasm of the Colon. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment Reference Date 10/27/2019, documented the resident had severely impaired cognition. The MDS further documented the resident received tube feeding for nutrition and hydration. The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for Tube feeding documented that, the resident requires tube feeding due to inability…
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 · D2019-12-05 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure that the resident's environment remained free of accident hazards. Specifically, the floor tiles at the foot of the bed in a resident's room were lifting up and uneven with a hole measuring approximately 3 inches by 3 inches with a circumference of approximately 10 inches. This was evident for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for Accident (Resident #93). The finding is: Resident # 93 was admitted with diagnoses which include: Hemiparesis, Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA) and Seizure Disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/05/19 documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS further documented the resident required extensive assist for activities of daily living needs (ADL). A walker and/or wheelchair were used for mobility. On 12/01/19 at 11:01 AM, the the floor tiles by the foot of the resident's bed were loose and uneven with a hole measuring approximately 3 inches by 3 inches with a circumference of approximately 10 inches. Staff were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2024-07-03 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow 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 observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 06/26/2024 to 07/03/2024, the facility did not ensure that the survey results were posted in a place readily accessible to residents, and family members or legal representatives of residents. Specifically, the survey results were located on top of high shelf in the lobby with no signage in the area and was not readily accessible to residents. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure titled Residents' Rights with a last revision date of 03/2024 documented that residents has the right to examine 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. During multiple observations between 06/26/2024 to 06/28/2024 of prominent areas and resident units in the facility, the survey results or information about the whereabouts of the survey results could not be located. On 06/28/2024 at 11:46 AM, the facility security staff showed the Surveyor that the binder for survey results…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BASCH, JACK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 05/21/2007 |
| KLEIN, TIBOR | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 75% | since 05/21/2007 |
| KRAUS, YOSSI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| KLEIN, CHAIM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/21/2007 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 4 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 $5.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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 335814. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-03, 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.