Beacon Rehabilitation and Nursing Center
140 Beach 113th Street, Far Rockaway, NY 11694 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (718) 945-6350 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (13% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,512 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-02)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.0% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.4% | 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 | 0.3% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 52.6% | 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 | 2.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.7% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.7% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.3% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.9% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.1% | 19.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.1% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 69.1% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.4% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.2% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.48 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.65 | 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.
31.4% 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 155 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.3% 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 83 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 | 31.4%CMS range 25.2–38.5 | 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 | 11.6%CMS range 8.0–14.8 | 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 | 66.3% | 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 | 66.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 66.3% | 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 | 98.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.6% | 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 | 4.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 9.0%CMS range 6.3–13.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.63 | 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 109.8 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.86 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 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 3.03 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.40 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.93 to 0.68 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 13% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-03-14 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00334677), the facility failed to protect a resident from physical abuse by nursing home staff. This was evident in 1 out of 3 residents sampled for abuse (Resident #1). Specifically, on 02/28/24 at approximately 7:00 pm, Resident #1 reported to Nursing Supervisor #1 that they were kicked in the scrotal area by Certified Nursing Assistant #2. Resident #1 reported that when they were kicked in the groin, they screamed out in pain. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 also reported to Nursing Supervisor #1 they witnessed Certified Nursing Assistant #2 kick Resident #1 in their private area and that Resident #1 screamed out in pain. A nursing note, by Nursing Supervisor #1, dated 02/28/24 at 6:33 pm documented that a head-to-toe assessment was done immediately and revealed no visible injuries. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure…
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 · F2026-01-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was identified during the Kitchen Task. Specifically, multiple refrigerated food items were undated and stored in open packaging. Additionally, the kitchen staff were not monitoring the cold food temperatures. The findings are: A facility policy titled Food Storage documented all food stored is maintained in a safe, sanitary, and temperature-controlled manner in order to prevent foodborne illnesses, contamination, and spoilage. All food items shall be stored, labeled, dated, and monitored in accordance with the accepted food safety standards and regulatory requirements. All refrigerated food items must be covered, labeled, dated, and discarded according to the facility's guidelines. All prepared, opened or thawed foods must be labeled with date prepared/opened. Unlabeled or expired food shall be discarded immediately. A facility policy titled Food Temperature Control and Food…
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 · D2026-01-15 · 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 observation, record review and interviews the facility did not ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and cared for in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. This was identified for one (1) (Resident #70) of two (2) residents reviewed for Dignity. Specifically, on 01/12/2026 Certified Nursing Assistant #1 was observed in the hallway pulling Resident #70 backwards for approximately 100 feet while the resident was laying completely flat on a shower bed. At the time, there were other residents and staff in the hallway.The finding is:The facility's policy titled Resident Dignity, Respect, and Self-Determination, last reviewed 01/15/2025, documented the facility is committed to protecting and promoting each resident's right to dignity, respect, privacy, individuality, and self-determination. All residents shall receive care in a manner that supports their dignity, privacy, independence, and quality of life. All residents have a right to privacy in treatment,…
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 · D2026-01-15 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews the facility did not ensure that each resident with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing. This was identified for two (2) (Resident #7 and Resident #10) of three (3) residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, 1) during the wound care observation for Resident #7, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 did not cleanse all surfaces of the wound bed, including the part of the wound with undermining (a pocket or shelf beneath the surface of the skin extending beyond the visible opening, making it harder to heal and prone to infection). Additionally, the air mattress weight setting for Resident #7 was not consistent with the resident's weight. 2) Resident #10's air mattress weight setting was not consistent with the resident's weight and the facility staff was unfamiliar with the pump functions and settings.The findings are:The facility's policy titled Wound Care and Dressing Change,…
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 · D2024-03-14 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00334677), the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, was reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. This was evident in 1 out of 3 residents sampled for abuse (Resident #1). Specifically, Resident #1 and Certified Nursing Assistant #1 reported to Nursing Supervisor #1 on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 an abbreviated survey (NY00334677), the facility failed to protect residents from potential abuse while an investigation was in progress. This was evident in 1 out of 3 residents sampled for abuse (Resident #1). Specifically, Resident #1 and Certified Nursing Assistant #1 reported to Nursing Supervisor #1 on 02/28/24 at approximately 7:00 pm, that Certified Nursing Assistant #2 kicked Resident #1 in their scrotal area. Nursing Supervisor #1 instructed Certified Nursing Assistant #2 to leave Resident #1's unit and to return to their unit on the 3rd floor. Certified Nursing Assistant #2 was allowed to complete their resident care assignment until their shift ended at 11:00 pm on 08/28/24. Certified Nursing Assistant #2 was removed from the schedule on 02/29/24. This occurred when the Director of Nursing and Assistant Director of Nursing became aware of the allegation of abuse on 02/29/24. The findings are: The facility's Abuse Prevention Policy 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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 01/28/2024 to 02/02/2024, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to participate in the development and implementation of their person-centered plan of care. This was evident for 2 (Resident #83 and #4) of 26 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #83 and their representative were not invited to their care plan meeting, and 2) Resident #4 was not invited to their care plan meeting. The findings are: The facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 02/2023 documented the plan of care will be reviewed and revised quarterly, annually, with significant change of status and as needed to enhance the resident's ability to meet resident objectives. 1. Resident #83 had diagnoses of hypertension and obstructive uropathy. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #83 was moderately cognitively impaired, and the resident and family participated in the assessment. Social Service Note…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 1/28/2024 to 2/2/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident, or their designated representative was provided with a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage and Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage at the termination of Medicare Part A benefits. This was evident for 1 (Residents #62) of 3 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Notification out of 26 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #62 and their designated representative were not provided with a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage and Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage once Resident #62 was terminated from skilled services and remained in the facility. The findings are: The facility policy titled Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage and Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage Benefits Exhaust Letter dated 1/2024 documented it is the policy of the facility to give a completed copy of notices to beneficiaries…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-02 · 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, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 1/28/2024 to 2/2/2024, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was reviewed and revised to address a resident's needs. This was evident for 2 (Resident #4 and Resident #98) of 26 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #4's comprehensive care plans were not reviewed and revised to reflect Resident #4's diagnosis management and medication administration, and 2) Resident #98's comprehensive care plan was not reviewed and revised to reflect their risk for elopement. The findings are: The facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans dated 2/2023 documented the plan of care will be reviewed and revised quarterly, annually, with significant change of status and as needed to enhance the resident's ability to meet their objectives. 1) Resident #4 had diagnoses of right humerus fracture and atrial fibrillation. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented 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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 1/28/2024 to 2/2/2024, the facility did not ensure an ongoing activities program was provided to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident. This was evident for 1 (Residents #57) of 26 sampled total residents. Specifically, Resident #57 was not provided an activity program according to their interests and experienced cancellation of activities with no alternative and without resident notification. The findings are: The undated facility policy titled Therapeutic Recreation documented that the facility Recreation Therapist/Aide will provide each resident with daily choices, options, and program alternatives to spend their time and will maintains an attendance log for each activity to assess participation and socialization to ensure meaningful activities are being offered. Resident #57 had diagnoses of coronary artery disease and anemia. The Minimum Data Set…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-02 · tag F0776 — isolatedProvide timely, approved x-ray services, or have an agreement with an approved provider to obtain them.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Complaint survey (NY00297169) from 1/18/2024 to 2/2/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident received timely radiologic or other diagnostic services. This was evident for 1 (Resident #57) of 26 total sampled residents. Specifically, gynecology and vascular consults were not ordered and completed timely Resident #57 had delay in receiving medical management at consultation services. The findings are: The facility policy titled Consultations dated 2/5/2023 documented Licensed Practical Nurses will follow up all consultation orders as ordered and written by the physician for all resident's consultations. This includes any request for medical or clinical office visits. If there is a delay of more than 30 days before the consultant could examine the resident, the Registered Nurse Supervisor and the Medical Director will be notified. Resident #57 had diagnoses of deep vein thrombosis and coronary artery disease. 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 · D2024-02-02 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 01/28/2024 through 02/02/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident's records were accurately documented. This was evident in 2 (Resident #61 and #67) of 26 total sampled residents. Specifically, 1) Licensed Practical Nurse #1 inaccurately documented Resident #61 was administered antianxiety medication, Xanax, and 2) Resident #67 was documented as having a Foley catheter after the Foley catheter had been removed. The findings are: The undated facility policy titled Medication Administration documented the nurse signs off on the Medication Administration Record immediately after administration of the medication. 1) Resident #61 had diagnoses of anxiety and bipolar disorder. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #61 was cognitively intact. On 01/31/2024 at 12:06 PM, the North 4 medication cart was observed with Resident #61's 8 AM Xanax .25mg dose present on the cart. During an…
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 · F2022-02-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that infection control practices and procedures were maintained. Specifically, 1). oxygen tubing was observed touching the floor on multiple occasions, and 2). the facility-specific water management plan for Legionella was missing the following required components: (a) environmental assessment of water system. (b) Legionella sampling plan in place for the potable water system. This was evident for 2 out 2 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care out of a sample of 24 residents and during review of Infection Control. (Resident # 6 and Resident # 54) The findings are: 1 (a). Resident #6 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that include Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary hypertension The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented that resident's cognition was moderately impaired and that extensive assistance with 2 persons physical assistance was needed for transfers and toilet…
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 · D2022-02-04 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interviews during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure individual resident financial records were made available to resident and resident representatives through quarterly statements. Specifically, quarterly statements were not provided in writing to residents and/or resident representatives within 30 days after the end of the quarter. This was evident for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for Personal Funds out of total sample of 24 residents sampled. (Residents #46 & #67) The findings are: The facility policy titled Resident Fund dated 10/1/2018, documented after each quarter or as requested, Quarterly statements will be distributed to all the residents with capacity accompanied by a signature confirming their receipt. For all other residents who lack capacity, the Quarterly statement will be emailed/mailed to their designated rep with a signature by the Finance Coordinator/designee. 1.Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses…
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 · D2022-02-04 · 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 conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that needed services, care and equipment are provided to assure that resident with limited range of motion and mobility maintain or improve function based on the residents' clinical condition. Specifically, a resident was not provided with the handroll, and splint device ordered to improve resident's contractures. This was evident for 1 out of 2 residents reviewed for Limited ROM out of 24 residents sampled. (Resident #53) The findings are: The facility's policy titled Use of Assistive Devices dated 2/20/2018, last revised 10/20/2021 documented that the purpose of the policy is to provide a reliable process for the proper and consistent use of assistive devices for those residents requiring equipment to maintain or improve function and/or dignity .If recommended but not utilized, if this is by resident's choice, must be documented in the Comprehensive Plan of care. Resident #53 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.
- 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
$8,512 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,512 — penalty dated 2024-02-02
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSTREICHER, SANDRA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 35% | since 07/15/2016 |
| SCHEINER, ELIEZER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 65% | since 07/15/2016 |
| BAIN, DOVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SETHI, DINESH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 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 $1.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% 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 335726. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-15, 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.