Long Island Care Center Inc
144-61 38th Avenue, Flushing, NY 11354 · For profit - Corporation · 200 certified beds · (718) 939-7500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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 (28% 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 May 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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 | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 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 | 7.9% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.6% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.4% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 40.7% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 1.4% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.5% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.3% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.4% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.4% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.2% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.0% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.7% | 13.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 60.1% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.3% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.2% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.20 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.84 | 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.
40.5% 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 174 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 75.7% 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 136 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 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 71% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 | 40.5%CMS range 32.7–49.3 | 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 | 9.6%CMS range 7.0–12.2 | 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 | 75.7% | 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 | 78.7% | 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 | 74.3% | 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 | 92.5% | 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 | 96.2% | 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 | 90.3% | 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 | 0.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.9% | 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 | 8.3%CMS range 5.4–12.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.76 | 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 200 beds and averages 186.7 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 13 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 3.74 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.31 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 3.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.88 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.54 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-10 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (2614147), the facility failed to ensure a resident's physician was notified of changes in condition. This was evident in one (1) out of five (5) residents (Resident #1) sampled. Specifically, the Medical Director was not notified of Resident #1's change in condition. A review of the Certified Nursing Assistant Accountability Record dated 08/01/2027 through 08/17/2025 documented that Resident #1 exhibited watery stool on 08/02/2025, 08/04/2025, 8/05/2025, 08/06/2025, and 08/09/2025. Record review of the medical and nursing notes revealed no documented evidence that the Medical Director was notified of Resident #1's watery stool. The findings include:The facility's policy titled, Notification of Medical Doctor of Residents Change in Condition dated 04/28/2025, documented it is the policy of the facility that the resident's primary medical doctor or designee, be made aware of any change in the resident's condition to facilitate complete and continuous quality of care to the residents and to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-10 · 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 observations, record review, and interviews during an abbreviated survey (2614147), the facility did not ensure that a resident care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team to reflect a resident's bowel pattern. This was evident in two (2) of five (5) residents (Resident #1 and #2) sampled. Specifically, the Certified Nursing Assistant Accountability Record documented that Resident #1 had watery bowel movements on 08/02/2025, 08/04/2025, 08/05/2025, 08/06/2025, and 08/09/2025. Additional, Resident #2 had watery bowel movements daily from 08/01/2025-08/19/2025 and 08/22/2025-08/30/2025. According to interviews with nursing staff and Medical Doctor #1, water bowel movements are expected due to enteral feeding. This was not reflected in Resident #1 and Resident #2's plan of care. The findings include:The facility's policy titled Updating Comprehensive Care Plans dated 05/2024 documented that it is the policy of the facility to treat the Comprehensive Care Plan as personalized plan of…
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 · D2024-05-02 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00308373), the facility failed to protect a resident from physical abuse by a nursing home staff. This was evident in one out of two residents (Resident #1) sampled for abuse. Specifically, on 01/09/23 at approximately 9:44 pm the facility's surveillance video recording showed Licensed Practical Nurse #1 hit Resident #1 on the left side of their face with a bottle (plastic). The facility's Accident and Incident Report dated 01/09/23 at 9:45 pm documented Resident #1 called the police and was transferred to the hospital. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure titled Resident Abuse, Mistreatment, Exploitation, Misappropriation of Property, Corporal Punishment, Involuntary Seclusion, Neglect, and Injury of Unknown Source, dated 02/2022 states it is the policy of the facility to assure all residents and families that the facility has taken steps within its control to prevent abuse, neglect, and mistreatment, exploitation of the residents and the misappropriation of their property. 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 · E2024-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 04/17/2024 to 04/24/2024, the facility did not ensure that infection control prevention practices and procedures were maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, Enhanced Barrier Precautions were not implemented in the facility. The findings are: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality/Quality, Safety & Oversight Group memorandum titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions in Nursing Homes, Ref: QSO-24-08-NH dated 03/20/2024 documented that effective 04/01/2024, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is issuing a new guidance for long term care facilities on the use of enhanced barrier precautions to align with nationally accepted standards. Enhanced Barrier Precautions recommendations now include use of enhanced barrier precautions for residents with chronic wounds or indwelling medical devices during high-contact 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 · D2024-04-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 04/17/2024 to 04/24/2024, the facility did not ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident in 1 of 6 pantries observed for food storage. Specifically, the 6th floor residents' pantry refrigerator had a temperature of 44 degrees Fahrenheit and contained an undated staff's food. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Pantry Policy with an effective date of March 2024 documented that it is the policy of the facility to provide safe and clean pantry including a refrigerator on each unit to store resident's food and nourishments. Refrigerator temperatures are to be maintained between 32-40 degrees Fahrenheit. Items kept in the refrigerator must be dated and labeled with name and room number. Items will be disposed of after 3 days and any unlabeled and undated items will be disposed of as well. The Facility policy and procedure on Use and Storage of Food Brought to Residents from the Outside which was last…
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 · E2022-03-31 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews and interviews during the Recertification survey conducted from 3/23/22 to 3/30/22, the facility did not ensure that a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment was provided to residents. Specifically, broken heating unit, dirty windowsill, rusted radiator cover/vent unit, dusty and corroded window frame, missing wardrobe closet drawer and door, missing wardrobe closet handles/knobs/door, unpainted and peeling wall paints were observed in resident's rooms, hallways, and the common areas. This was evident in multiple area on 4 of 5 units (Units 6, 2, 5 and 4). The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Terminal Housekeeping Cleaning - Sanitizing and Disinfecting dated 3/20 documented it is facility's responsibility to maintain a hygienically clean environment by routine cleaning and infection control practice. It further documented that minor repair by maintenance worker will be completed. During observations of the environment conducted on Unit 6 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 · D2022-03-31 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 3/23/22-3/30/22 the facility did not ensure that a resident remained free from physical restraints. Specifically, a resident was observed with a left-hand mitten which was not identified as a restraint. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Physical Restraints out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #32) The findings are: The facility policy titled Physical Restraints revised July 3, 2019, documented it is the policy of the facility that before application of a restraint, all other alternatives will have been explored and/or tried. Only after documentation as to why these measures are ineffective or inappropriate will the least restrictive restraint be ordered and utilized. The resident has the right to make an informed choice regarding the use of restraints. In the case of a resident who is incapable of making a decision, the designated representative may exercise the right based on the same…
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 before2022-03-31 · 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 record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey 3/23/2022 to 3/30/2022, the facility did not ensure, to the extent practicable, that residents/resident representatives participated in the development of a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). Specifically, there was no evidence cognitively intact residents were afforded the opportunity to participate in the care plan meetings or documentation explaining why they could not participate. This was evident for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for Care Plan out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #145 and #66) The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) and Resident/Patient Meeting with effective date February 2022, supersedes:12/1/2019; 3/30/2017 documented under Policy/Procedures and Information 1) A CCP meeting (with the inclusion by invitation to the resident and/or family) will be conducted with 21 days from admission 2) The mechanics of how the interdisciplinary team meets its responsibilities…
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 · D2022-03-31 · 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
Based on observation, record review and staff interviews during the Recertification survey conducted 3/23/22 to 3/30/22, the facility did not ensure that care and services are provided according to accepted standards of clinical practice. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that a resident with intravenous (IV) Midline access site for antibiotic therapy was provided with proper administration of the initial dose by a Registered Nurse (RN) and assessment of the resident by an RN for symptoms and reactions to prevent further infection, and complications of IV therapy when administered by a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). This was evident for 1 of 10 residents observed for Medication Administration. (Resident #57). The findings are: The undated facility policy on Job Description: - Licensed Practical Nurse documented: The Licensed Practical Nurse, under the supervision of the RN Supervisor, renders professional nursing care to residents in support of medical care as ordered by the physician and pursuant to objectives and policies of Long Island Care Center. The New York State…
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 · D2022-03-31 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Citation Text for Tag 0755, Regulation FF11 [NAME], Daneya C. Based on interviews, observations and record reviews conducted during a Recertification survey from 3/23/2022 to 3/30/22, the facility did not ensure timely identification and removal of expired medications. Specifically, expired medications were observed in the medication room cabinet on (4th floor) The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure entitled Medication Storage Of effective date 6/1/2009, documented that medication are stored according to procedures established and in compliance with State and Federal regulations, as well as manufacturer's recommendations, to ensure the integrity of all medications. On 3/29/2022 at 4:40 PM, the medication storage room was observed. One unopened botte of Bisacodyl 5mg 100 tablets was observed with an expiry date of 1/2022 in the stock medication cabinet. On 3/29/2022 at 4:40 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed. LPN #2 stated that all nurses are responsible for checking medications…
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 · D2022-03-31 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and staff interviews during the Recertification survey conducted 3/23/22 to 3/30/22, the facility did not ensure that resident on intravenous therapy received adequate monitoring. Specifically, a resident's antibiotics medication was not adequately monitored every shift by a Registered Nurse for the indication for its use and/or for the possible presence of adverse consequences when administered by a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). This was evident for 1 of 10 residents observed for Medication Administration. (Resident #57). The findings are: The New York State Education Board for Nursing on Practice Information: - The Practice of IV Therapy by Licensed Practical Nurses in Long Term Care Settings last updated April 16, 2021, documented the role of the LPN in providing intravenous therapy is determined by a number of factors including the complexity of the procedure, the degree of direction, the setting, as well as the skill and competence of the licensee. A Registered Professional Nurse (RN) may delegate select activities associated with 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 · D2022-03-31 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and staff interviews conducted during a Recertification survey from 3/23/22 to 3/30/22, the facility did not ensure that the resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary medications. Specifically, a resident with a Dementia diagnosis was maintained on an antipsychotic medication with no documented behaviors to support the ongoing use of the medication. This was evident for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for the Unnecessary Medication out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident # 67). The findings include. The facility policy, procedure, and information titled Medication: Psychoactive Medication Use revised 01/2022 documented that the facility will monitor all residents on psychoactive medications as mandated by the State and Federal Guidelines. Resident #67 was admitted to facility on 12/23/2021 diagnoses that included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia and Depression. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented resident as severely cognitively impaired with no…
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 · D2022-03-31 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews conducted during a Recertification survey from 3/23/2022 to 3/30/2022, the facility did not ensure 1). that controlled drugs were stored appropriately in locked compartments and 2). that medication and biologicals were labeled and dated appropriately when opened. Specifically, one of the two double locked narcotics cabinet door was unlocked and multi-use insulin vials were not labeled when opened. This was observed on 1 of 5 units during the Medication Storage Task. (Unit 2). The findings are: The facility policy titled Medication: Storage of effective date 6/1/2009 documented Medications are stored according to procedures established and in compliance with State and Federal regulations, as well as manufacturer's recommendations, to ensure the integrity of all medications. On 03/29/22 at 12:50 PM, the Medication cart was observed on the 2nd Floor in the hallway near the elevator bank. One Lantus insulin pen and one Novolog Flex pen were observed opened and there was no discard date on the label. On 03/29/22 at 01:02 PM, the narcotics…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PARAGON HEALTHNET — 11 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.5★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MADEB, ISAAC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 14% | since 01/01/2010 |
| NICHOLS, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 11% | since 01/01/2010 |
| LAUFER, ISSAC | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| POMERANTZ, IRWIN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/30/2015 |
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 $3.0M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335294. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-24, 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.