Island Nursing and Rehab Center
5537 Expressway Drive North, Holtsville, NY 11742 · Non profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (631) 758-3336 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 19.3% | 14.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.6% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.9% | 1.3% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 21.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 6.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.3% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.6% | 13.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.6% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.4% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.6% | 19.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.2% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.9% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.3% | 20.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.6% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.26 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.19 | 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.
58.6% 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 370 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 161 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 0.66 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 36% 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 | 58.6%CMS range 52.9–63.9 | 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 | 12.8%CMS range 10.2–15.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 61.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 58.4% | 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 | 68.9% | 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 | 97.5% | 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 | 91.9% | 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 | 98.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 9.0%CMS range 5.8–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 111.2 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 9 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 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 3.02 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.55 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-06 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 07/31/2025 and completed on 08/06/2025, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to self-administer medications. This was identified for one (Resident #8) of six (6) residents reviewed for Accidents. Specifically, Resident #8 was observed with a souffle medication cup containing four pills on their bedside table. There was no documented evidence Resident #8 was assessed to self-administer medications, and the resident did not have a physician's order to self-administer their medications. The finding is: The facility policy titled Medication, Self-Administration, dated 2/2017, documented that each resident shall have the right to self-administer medications if the interdisciplinary team has determined that this practice is clinically appropriate. Self-administering medications is [permitted] by physician order only. Medications kept at bedside are in a locked box. Resident #8 was admitted with diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview during the recertification survey initiated on 07/31/2025 and completed on 08/06/2025, the facility did not ensure person-centered comprehensive care plans that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs were developed and implemented. This was identified for one (Resident #8) of two residents reviewed for Behavioral and Emotional Status. Specifically, Resident #8 had a Physician's order for a two-person approach in care and a Comprehensive Care Plan for Accusatory Behaviors with interventions that included a two-person approach. During an observation on 07/31/2025 at 11:05 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 provided care to Resident #8 without a second caregiver in the resident's room.The finding is:Resident #8 was admitted with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, and Osteoarthritis. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], documented 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 · D2025-08-06 · 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 Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 07/31/2025 and completed on 08/06/2025, the facility did not ensure that drug records were in order and accounted for all controlled drugs. This was identified for one (Unit 3) of two units reviewed for medication storage and medication administration tasks. Specifically, during the medication storage task/medication administration task on Unit 3 on 08/01/2025 at 5:46 AM, the Controlled Substance Administration Record was not reconciled to reflect Resident #60's refusal of Tramadol hydrochloric acid medications on 07/31/2025 at 9:00 PM. The finding is: The Facility's Controlled Substances and Narcotics Policy dated January 2025 documented that when a resident refuses a controlled substance after it has been poured, the medication must be destroyed with a witness, and the back of the Controlled Drug 24-Hour Administration Record must be completed. The Nursing Supervisor must be notified. Resident #60 was admitted…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 7/31/2025 and completed on 8/6/2025, the facility did not ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments and only authorized personnel were permitted to have access. This was identified for one (Unit 3 ) of two (2) Units reviewed during the medication storage task and for one (Resident #8) of six (6) residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, 1) during the medication administration observation on 08/01/2025 at 5:46 AM, an unattended medication cart on Unit 3 was observed to be unlocked in the hallway with an unlocked narcotic box. Additionally, there were two cups containing Resident #60's controlled medications on the medication cart. 2) Resident #8 was observed with a souffle medication cup containing four (4) medication tablets on their overbed table and did not have a Physician's order to self-administer medications. The findings are: 1) The facility's Controlled Substances and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-11 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification and abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY 00327627) initiated on 6/05/2024 and completed on 6/11/2024, the facility did not ensure sufficient nursing staff were available to provide nursing services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This was identified for two (Unit 2 and Unit 3) of three units reviewed during the Sufficient Nursing Staffing Task. Specifically, 1) a review of the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report Quarter 1 2024 from October 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023, indicated excessively low weekend staffing; 2) During the survey 13 of the 26 sampled residents ( Resident # 19, # 72, #45, # 18, # 75, # 16, # 57, # 36, # 39, # 73, # 31, 50 and # 49) complained of staffing shortage causing a delay in staff response to call bells and a delay in attending to the residents' needs; and 3) During observations on the weekend of 6/8/2024 and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-11 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 6/5/2024 and completed on 6/11/2024, the facility did not ensure an assessment was completed for each resident to accurately reflect a resident's status. This was identified for one (Resident #54) of one resident reviewed for Hospice and End of Life. Specifically, the Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] did not reflect Resident #54 received Hospice care. The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure titled MDS 3.0 Completion dated August 2020 documented residents are assessed, using a comprehensive assessment process, in order to identify care needs and to develop an interdisciplinary care plan. The facility initially and periodically conducts a comprehensive, accurate, and standardized assessment of each resident's functional capacity. Resident #54 was admitted with diagnoses including Dementia, Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, and Hypothyroidism. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 6/5/2024 and completed on 6/11/2024, the facility did not ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was generated for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet each resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. This was identified for 1) one (Resident #81) of two residents reviewed for skin conditions; 2) one (Resident #73) of two residents reviewed for positioning; and 3) one (Resident #90) of one resident reviewed for language and communication. Specifically, 1) Resident #81 had a history of a chronic skin condition and was currently experiencing symptoms that included pruritis (itching), crusting, and weeping lesions. There was no comprehensive care plan developed for the resident's chronic skin condition; 2) Resident #73 was observed on 6/5/2024 and 6/9/2024 wearing a Miami J Cervical Collar and there was 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 · D2024-06-11 · 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 during the Recertification Survey initiated on 6/5/2024 and completed on 6/11/2024 the facility did not ensure person-centered comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised to address each resident's needs. This was identified for 1) one (Resident #80) of one resident reviewed for hydration and 2) one (Resident #37) of one resident reviewed for Dental Services. Specifically, 1) there was no documented evidence that the comprehensive care plans for Resident #80 were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly review assessment. 2) For Resident #37, the dental care plan was not reviewed and revised to reflect the resident's dental pain concerns and the need for dental X-rays as recommended by the resident's Dentist. The finding is: A facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 12/2019 documented that the interdisciplinary team should ensure the timeliness of each resident's person-centered comprehensive care plan…
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 · D2024-06-11 · 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 observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 6/5/2024 and completed on 6/11/2024, the facility did not ensure that each resident's medical care was supervised by a Physician throughout the resident's stay. This was identified for 1) one (Resident #45) of one resident reviewed for anticoagulant medication use and 2) one (Resident #73) of one resident reviewed for positioning/mobility. Specifically, 1) Resident #45's permanent cardiac pacemaker (a device placed in the chest that sends small electrical impulses to the heart muscles for maintaining a suitable heart rate) was supposed to be checked every three months as per the physician's order. The resident's Primary Care Physician did not ensure the pacemaker was monitored as per the physician's order. 2) Resident #73 was observed on multiple occasions wearing a Miami J Collar. The Primary Care Physician was not aware of the use of the Miami J Collar (a neck brace used to prevent head and neck movement) and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-11 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey and Extended Survey (NY 00312849) initiated on 6/5/2024 and completed on 6/11/2024, the facility did not ensure that each resident received routine dental care. This was identified for one (Resident #37) of two residents reviewed for Pain Management. Specifically, on 3/17/2023, Dentist #1 recommended dental X-rays of the upper left and lower left teeth for Resident #37 due to a complaint of mouth pain. There was no documented evidence that the dental X-rays were ever done. The finding is: The facility's policy titled Dental and Oral Health, dated 1/2021, documented it is the policy of the facility to make routine and 24-hour emergency dental care available to its residents and to ensure the availability of these services. The dental program shall include preventive care, evaluation, and treatment, including extractions, restorative dentistry, and dental prosthetics. Resident #37 was admitted with diagnoses including Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, and Osteoarthritis. The 1/25/2023 Minimum Data…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-09-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 9/6/2022 and completed on 9/13/2022, the facility failed to establish and maintain infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development of communicable diseases. This was identified for six (Resident #77, #57, #50, #9, #43, #32) of seven residents reviewed for respiratory care. Specifically, for six (Resident #77, #57, #50, #9, #43, #32) of six residents receiving nebulizer treatment the facility did not follow their policy and procedures to change or clean the tubing, the mouthpiece, and the mask utilized to provide treatment via the nebulizer to prevent and minimize the risk of infection. Findings include but are not limited to: The Nebulizer Policy revised in May 2022, documented that after completion of nebulizer treatments, the nebulizer mask must be rinsed with normal saline and air dried. The mask can be cleanly…
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 F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 9/6/2022 and completed on 9/13/2022, the facility did not ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care is provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice. This was identified for one (Resident #64) of seven residents reviewed for respiratory care. Specifically, Resident #64 had a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and was not receiving oxygen therapy as per the Physician's order. The finding is: The policy and procedure for oxygen administration dated November 2019 documented to verify there is a Physician's order for the procedure [oxygen administration], assemble equipment needed for the procedure [oxygen administration], and connect the resident tubing to the oxygen source. Resident #64 was admitted with the diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Acute Exacerbation and Hypertension. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-09-13 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 9/6/2022 and completed on 9/13/2022, the facility did not ensure that nurse aides are able to demonstrate competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs safely, and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychosocial well- being. This was identified for one (Resident #64) of seven residents reviewed for Respiratory care. Specifically, Resident #64 had a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and had a Physician's order to administer oxygen continuously at 3 Liters/minute. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not report the resident's refusal to utilize the physician prescribed oxygen to the charge nurse. The finding is: The Policy and Procedure for Oxygen administration dated November 2019 documented to verify there is a Physician's order for the procedure [oxygen administration], assemble equipment needed for the procedure…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GURWIN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/14/2021 |
| ALMER, STUART | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/15/2021 |
| ANGOWITZ, GERALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/15/2021 |
| BRODSKY, BERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/15/2021 |
| FINKEL, NOAH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/15/2021 |
| LAUNER, LEE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/15/2021 |
| WOLF, CARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/15/2021 |
| VITERITTI, LOUIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/15/2021 |
| BUTCHMA, OLAF | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/13/2025 |
| MARCHAND, AUDREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/13/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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 $723K 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 335835. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-06, 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.