Glen Cove Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation
6 Medical Plaza, Glen Cove, NY 11542 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 154 certified beds · (516) 656-8000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- 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) | 3 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 | 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 fell from 5 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 | 9.0% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 83.8% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.4% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.2% | 13.2% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 17.0% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 2.7% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.8% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.0% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.9% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.5% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.27 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.81 | 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.
57.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 804 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.1% 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 253 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 0.80 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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 | 57.6%CMS range 53.2–61.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 9.2–13.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 77.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 71.5% | 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 | 71.9% | 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 | 98.9% | 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 | 98.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 98.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.5% | 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 | 0.7% | 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 | 9.1%CMS range 7.2–10.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.50 | 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 154 beds and averages 136.5 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 18 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 4.03 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.33 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 3.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.18 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.77 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%. 4 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-12-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review during the Recertification Survey initiated on 12/11/2025 and completed on 12/18/2025, the facility did not ensure each resident was served food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature. This was identified for six (6) (Resident #23, Resident #39, Resident #25, Resident #8, Resident #121, Resident #129) of seven (7) residents during the Resident Council meeting. Specifically, during the Resident Council meeting held on 12/12/2025, six (6) of seven (7) alert and lucid residents in attendance complained the hot meals were served cold. On 12/16/2025, during the lunch meal service observations, the lunch meal temperatures for the hot food items were observed to be below 135 degrees Fahrenheit.The finding is:The facility's policy titled Meal Pass Distribution & Food Temperature Control dated October 2024 documented that during meal pass the hot food temperatures should be maintained at or above 135 degrees Fahrenheit.The Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review during the Recertification Survey initiated on 12/11/2025 and completed on 12/18/2025 the facility did not ensure that comfortable temperature levels were maintained in the facility. This was identified for one (1) (Resident #2) of one (1) resident reviewed for the Environmental Task. Specifically, on 12/15/2025 Resident #2 complained of being cold. The room temperature was measured to be 66 degrees Fahrenheit.The finding is:The facility policy titled Ambient Temperature, dated 01/02/2018, documented the facility is to maintain the temperature within the resident areas at a safe and comfortable level. Whenever the temperature in any resident area is outside the temperature range, the nursing home shall immediately evaluate the situation and take appropriate action to ensure the health, safety and comfort of its residents. The Engineering department shall do routine temperature checks of various rooms daily and log the findings. If there is an unusual weather action, then temperature shall be monitored more frequently. Respond 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 · D2025-12-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey initiated on 12/11/2025 and completed on 12/18/2025, the facility did not follow proper sanitation practices to prevent the outbreak of foodborne illness and did not store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was identified during the Kitchen Task. Specifically, the floor of the kitchen's walk-in freezer was observed soiled with food debris and frozen brownish substance during the initial kitchen tour on 12/11/2025. On follow-up kitchen observation on 12/12/2025, the floor in the walk-in freezer remained dirty and soiled with the unknown brown substance stuck to the floor. Additionally, a bag of frozen chopped spinach was observed on the floor, wedged behind the foot of the shelf and the corner of the walk-in freezer.The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure titled General Sanitation of the Kitchen effective 04/2022 documented that food and nutrition staff will maintain the sanitation of the kitchen through compliance with a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 12/11/2025 and completed on 12/18/2025, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This was identified for one (Resident #110) of three residents reviewed for Transmission Based Precautions. Specifically, Resident #110 was placed on Contact Isolation precautions for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA-a contagious bacterial infection) of the nares(nostril). Certified Nursing Assistant #1 was observed entering Resident #110's room without wearing appropriate Personal Protective Equipment including a gown and gloves. Certified Nursing Assistant #1 did not perform hand hygiene before entering Resident #110's room.The finding is:The facility's policy titled Transmission-Based Precautions, last revised on 09/11/2024, documented the facility will use Transmission-Based…
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 · D2024-05-17 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey initiated on 5/13/2024 and completed on 5/17/2024 the facility did not ensure that each resident had a call bell accessible to alert staff of the resident's needs. This was identified for one (Resident #80) of two residents reviewed for the Environmental Task. Specifically, on two occasions, Resident #80 was observed in bed with the call bell out of reach. The finding is: The facility's policy titled, Resident Call System, effective 10/2022 documented call lights are to be placed within the reach of residents. Staff will ensure the call bell is properly placed within the reach of a resident before exiting the room. Resident #80 was admitted with diagnoses that included Cerebral Infarction (Stroke), Dementia, and a History of Falls. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented Resident #80's Brief Interview for Mental Status score was four which indicated a severely impaired cognition. Resident #80 received…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-17 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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 review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 5/13/2024 and completed on 5/17/2024, the facility did not ensure that a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment was maintained for two (Resident #24 and Resident #80) of two residents reviewed for the Environmental Task. Specifically, 1) The privacy curtain in Resident #24's room was observed with large stained/soiled areas and 2) Resident #80's room had no window covering for one of the two windows observed in the room. The findings are: 1) The facility's policy titled Resident Room Terminal Cleaning, effective 8/10/2022 documented that all resident rooms receive a complete room cleaning on a rotating basis every five weeks. The maintenance will remove the privacy curtain and the laundry will launder the privacy curtain. Resident #24 was admitted with diagnoses that included Complete Intestinal Obstruction, Acute Respiratory Failure, and Muscle Wasting and Atrophy. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment…
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 · D2024-05-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey, initiated on 5/13/2024 and completed on 5/17/2024, the facility did not ensure that each resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing, for one (Resident #109) of four residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, Resident #109 was admitted to the facility with a Deep Tissue Injury (a pressure injury caused by damage to the underlying soft tissues) to the sacrum (a bone at the base of the spine). The resident had a physician's order for an alternating pressure relief air mattress. During multiple observations, the adjustable weight setting for the mattress, which is meant to correspond to the resident's weight, was not set accurately. In addition, a re-assessment of the sacrum wound, by the Director of Nursing Services and the Wound Physician, did not classify…
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 · D2024-05-17 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review during the Recertification Survey initiated on 5/13/2024 and completed on 5/17/2024, the facility did not ensure nursing staffing was posted daily and included the total number of licensed and unlicensed staff working per shift. Specifically, the facility's entrance lobby was observed on 5/13/2024 at 9:00 AM with the nursing staffing sheet dated 5/10/2024. Additionally, the nursing staffing sheets posted from 5/13/2024 to 5/16/2024 did not include the total number of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff working per shift. The finding is: A nursing staffing sheet was observed at the facility entrance by the receptionist area on 5/13/2024 at 9:00 AM. The nursing staffing sheet was dated 5/10/2024 and did not contain the number of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care for each nursing shift: 7:00 AM-3:00 PM, 3:00 PM-11:00 PM, and 11:00 PM-7:00 AM. A nursing staffing sheet was observed at the facility entrance by the receptionist area on 5/14/2024 at 12:30 PM. The nursing staffing sheet was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-17 · tag F0840 — isolatedEmploy or obtain outside professional resources to provide services in the nursing home when the facility does not employ a qualified professional to furnish a required service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 5/13/2024 and completed on 5/17/2024 the facility did not ensure that each resident received the use of outside resources in a timely manner. This was identified for one (Resident #91) of five residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications. Specifically, Resident #91 had a physician's order, dated 4/2/2024, for an initial psychiatry consult following the resident's admission to the facility on 4/1/2024; however, the resident did not receive their initial psychiatry consult until 5/15/2024. The finding is: The facility's policy titled, Physician Consultations effective 4/2023, documented it is the policy of this organization to ensure all residents receive medical care in a timely manner. The attending physician will indicate the appropriate time frame within which the specialist should see the resident. Resident #91 was admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and Psychotic Disorder. The 4/8/2024 admission Minimum Data Set assessment documented a Brief Interview…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-09-13 · 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
Based on interviews and record review during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated survey (NY00296813) initiated on 9/6/2022 and completed on 9/13/2022, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations are thoroughly investigated to rule out Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment. This was identified for one (Resident #208) of one resident reviewed for Change in Condition. Specifically, Resident #208 sustained a skin tear to the right forearm on 3/7/2022 and a skin tear to the left forearm on 3/8/2022. The facility did not initiate an investigation to determine the root cause of the incident and obtain pertinent statements to rule out Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Mistreatment. The finding is: The facility's policy, titled Risk Management: Resident/Patient Incidents and Accidents, dated 1/1/2022, documented an incident is an unexpected, unintended event that can cause a resident/patient superficial injury or no injury. Examples of incidents may include but are not limited to the following: non-injury falls, soft tissue injury or hematoma that does not disrupt…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-09-13 · tag F0710 — isolatedObtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's 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 record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 9/6/2022 and completed on 9/13/2022, the facility did not ensure that the medical care of each resident was supervised by the Physician including monitoring changes in the resident's medical status. This was identified for two (Resident #30 and Resident #86) of three residents reviewed for Nutrition. Specifically, 1) Resident #30 had a 5% significant weight loss in July 2022 which was not addressed by their Primary Care Physician in their progress note and 2) Resident #86 had an 8.6% significant weight loss in 3 months identified in May 2022 which was not addressed by the Primary Care Physician in their progress note, a 17.1% significant weight loss in 6 months identified in June 2022 which was not addressed by the Primary Care Physician in their progress note, and a 10.8% significant weight loss in 6 months identified in August 2022 which was not addressed by the Primary Care Physician in their progress notes. The findings are:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.8 | -0.8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALEXANDER SKOCZYLAS RESIDUAL TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| ESTATE OF MAYER LAUFER | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 01/01/2022 |
| ESTATE OF TALI SKOCZYLAS | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 12% | since 01/01/2022 |
| BRACH, NATHAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | 8% | since 01/02/2008 |
| LAUFER, ISSAC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | 5% | since 01/02/2008 |
| MADEB, ISAAC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 01/01/2000 |
| NICHOLS, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2019 |
| NICHOLS, NANCY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2019 |
| OSTREICHER, MARVIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 03/31/1998 |
| ITZKOWITZ, JAY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| REYES, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/12/2025 |
| RULAND, ANDREA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2025 |
| 6 MEDICAL PLAZA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 $1.2M 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 335716. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-18, 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.