Long Beach Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
375 East Bay Drive, Long Beach, NY 11561 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 200 certified beds · (516) 897-1220 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 federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high number of inspection citations overall (24) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- about 56% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 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 | 7.5% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.8% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 1.9% | 1.3% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 24.0% | 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 | 3.7% | 3.1% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.8% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.9% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 6.5% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.2% | 19.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.9% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.8% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.1% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.5% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.78 | 1.70 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.59 | 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.
56.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 205 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 76.0% 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 104 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 56% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 56.3%CMS range 48.3–63.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.0%CMS range 6.6–12.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 76.0% | 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 | 68.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 65.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 99.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.0% | 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 | 0.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.3%CMS range 5.5–12.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.27 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 200 beds and averages 134.4 residents a day — about 67% occupied, or roughly 66 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.31 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 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 3.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.60 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.39 to 1.11 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
24 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 3/17/2025 and completed on 3/21/2025, the facility did not ensure that drugs and biologicals used in the facility must be labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable. This was identified for two (Unit 2 East and Unit 4 [NAME] medication carts) of three medication carts reviewed during the Medication Storage Task. Specifically, 1) one opened Lantus (a long-acting insulin) Solostar pen and one opened bottle of Polyvinyl Ophthalmic solution (a treatment for dry eyes) were observed in the Unit 4 [NAME] medication cart without an open date documented on the medications, and 2) one opened Humalog insulin (fast-acting insulin) pen was observed in the Unit 2 East medication cart without an open date documented on the insulin pen. The findings are: The facility's policy titled…
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 · Ecited before2025-03-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 3/17/2025 and completed on 3/21/2025, 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, 1) during the kitchen observation on 3/17/2025, the final rinse temperature of the high-temperature dishmachine was observed to be below 180 degrees Fahrenheit. The manufacturer's temperature recommendation for the rinse cycle was 180 degrees Fahrenheit and above and the dietary staff did not know how to operate and monitor the chemical sanitization process for the dishmachine 2) Multiple observations of washed cooking equipment and washed wet trays, plates, and domes were stored away without drying. 3) One out of six air circulation fans in the walk-in refrigerator was dusty with black build-up around the fan guard; the dry goods storage room floor was unclean; and a condiment…
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 · Ecited before2025-03-21 · 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
3) The facility's policy titled Medication Refrigerator Cleaning dated 11/2017 documented all medication refrigerators will be cleaned. The night shift licensed nurse assigned to clean the refrigerator at least once a week using a wet cloth or paper towel to clean the interior and exterior cabinet with warm water and wipe the inside of the refrigerator with disinfectant wipes and leave to dry, following the air-dry time of the disinfectant wipes. During an observation on 3/20/2025 at 1:44 PM, the Unit 4 medication storage room refrigerator was observed with dirty drug labels adhered/stuck on the refrigerator shelf and there was dry, scattered debris at the bottom of the refrigerator. During an interview on 3/20/2025 at 1:46 PM, Registered Nurse #1, the Registered Nurse Supervisor for Unit 4, stated the medication refrigerator should not have any debris or anything adhered to the refrigerator shelves. The unit nurses should have notified the housekeeping department to clean the medication refrigerator. During an interview on 3/21/2025 at 12:52 PM, the Director of Nursing Services…
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 before2025-03-21 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/17/2025 and completed on 3/17/2025, the facility did not ensure 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. This was identified for two (Resident #123 and Resident #50) of three residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, 1) Resident #123 had a physician's order to use an air mattress due to an unstageable pressure injury (a full-thickness tissue loss in which the depth of the wound bed is obscured by slough (yellow, tan, gray, green, or brown) and/or eschar (tan, brown, or black) to the right elbow. During an observation on 3/17/2025, the resident was in bed and the air mattress weight setting was not consistent with the resident's weight, and 2) Resident #50 had a physician's order to use an air mattress due to an unstageable pressure injury to the left buttock. During an observation on 3/17/2025, the air…
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 · D2025-03-21 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/17/2025 and completed on 3/21/2025, the facility did not ensure that a resident with a limited range of motion receives appropriate treatment and services. This was identified for one (Resident #42) of seven residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living. Specifically, Resident #42 was observed on multiple occasions with a gauze roll in their left hand. The resident's Comprehensive Care Plan documented the discontinuation of the use of the gauze roll in April 2024. An interview with the Director of Rehabilitation revealed that any object in the resident's hands may stimulate involuntary tone and greater tension in the resident's hands which was more detrimental than beneficial for the resident due to the Traumatic Brain Injury diagnosis. Additionally, The Rehabilitation screening did not include and measure the resident's current extent of movement of their joints and the identification of limitations 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 · D2025-03-21 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/17/2025 and completed on 3/21/2025, the facility did not ensure that each resident who is fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding (tube feeding). This was identified for one (Resident #123) of one resident reviewed for Tube Feeding. Specifically, on 3/17/2025, Resident #123 received the wrong enteral formula. The bottle for the enteral formula did not have a label indicating the resident's name, the flow rate, the time, and the date of the administration. The finding is: The facility's policy titled Administration of Gastrostomy Tube Feeding, effective 3/2025, documented tube feeding shall be administered and monitored by a licensed nurse upon the written order of a Physician/Nurse Practitioner. The licensed nurse will verify the physician's order (type of feeding, water flush amount, flow rate, route of administration). Attach the completed label with the details of the physician's order related to the tube…
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 · D2025-03-21 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide 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
Based on interviews and record review during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY 00357077) initiated on 3/17/2025 and completed on 3/21/2025, the facility did not ensure there was sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This was identified for one (Unit 3) of three resident units review for Sufficient and Competent Nurse Staffing. Specifically, there were insufficient Certified Nursing Assistants staffed on Unit 3 on the weekends for the following dates: 9/21/2024, 9/22/2024, 9/28/2024, 9/29/2024, and 10/6/2024 for various shifts. The finding is: The facility assessment dated 12/2024 documented on Unit 3, that there should be five Certified Nursing Assistants staffed for the day shift (7:00 AM to 3:00 PM) and the evening shift (3:00 PM to 11:00 PM). On the night shift (11:00 PM to 7:00 AM) there should be three Certified Nursing Assistants on Unit 3. The facility assessment prior to 12/2024 was not…
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 before2025-03-21 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 3/17/2025 and completed on 3/21/2025, the facility did not ensure that irregularities reported by the Pharmacist to the attending Physician, the facility's Medical Director, and the Director of Nursing were acted upon for each resident. This was identified for one (Resident #59) of five residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications. Specifically, the attending Physician for Resident #59 agreed to the recommendations to consider evaluating sliding scale insulin coverage and decreasing finger sticks to twice a day to obtain blood glucose readings made by the Pharmacist; however, the recommendations were not implemented. The finding is: The facility's policy titled Medication Regimen Reviews dated 10/2018 documented the consultant Pharmacist performs a comprehensive review of each resident's Medication Regimen Review upon admission/readmission and at least monthly. The Medication Regimen Review includes evaluating the resident's…
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 · D2023-09-13 · tag F0711 — isolatedEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
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 9/7/2023 and completed on 9/13/2023, the facility did not ensure that the resident's Primary Care Physician (PCP) comprehensively reviewed the resident's total program of care. This was identified for one (Resident #51) of five residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications. Specifically, Resident #51 was started on Digoxin (a medication used to treat various heart conditions) on 4/16/2023. On 5/12/2023, the consultant Pharmacist recommended to obtain the serum (blood) Digoxin level. The PCP agreed with the recommendations; however, the serum Digoxin level was not obtained until 6/16/2023 and resulted in a critically high serum Digoxin level. On 6/19/2023 Resident #51's PCP reviewed the laboratory workup and then discontinued the Digoxin medication. The finding is: The facility's policy titled, Drug Regimen Reviews dated 11/2016 documented that Resident-specific irregularities and/or clinically significant risks resulting from…
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 before2023-09-13 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review during the Recertification Survey initiated on 9/7/2023 and completed on 9/13/2023, the facility did not ensure that nurse aides were able to demonstrate competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs, as identified through resident assessments and described in the plan of care. This was identified for one (Resident #68) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, Resident #68 had a care plan intervention to offload heels while in bed with pillows; however, the resident was observed in bed on multiple occasions with their heels not offloaded but resting on the mattress. When this was brought to the attention of a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), the CNA repositioned a pillow directly under the heels, not allowing the heels to be offloaded. The finding is: The facility's policy titled, Pressure Injury/Pressure Ulcer Assessment, Prevention, and Management effective 3/24/2023, documented the facility shall provide care and services consistent with professional standards of practice 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.
Show the remaining 14 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-13 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 initiated on 9/7/2023 and completed on 9/13/2023, the facility did not ensure that their policy regarding the Pharmacy Medication Regimen Review (MRR) included time frames for the different steps in the process when the pharmacist identifies an irregularity. Specifically, the facility's policy on Drug Regimen Review did not include timeframes of when the Physician should review the recommendations made by the Pharmacist and document their response. The finding is: The facility's policy titled, Drug Regimen Reviews dated 11/2016 documented that Resident-specific irregularities and/or clinically significant risks resulting from or associated with medications are documented in the resident's monthly progress note and reported on a written report to the attending physician and the facility's medical director and Director of Nursing. Notification mode is dependent on severity of irregularity and is determined through consultation between consultant pharmacist and the attending physician. Recommendations are…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-13 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 9/7/2023 and completed on 9/13/2023 the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This was identified for one (Resident #10) of six residents observed during medication administration. Specifically, during the medication administration observation for Resident #10 on 9/8/2023, Registered Nurse (RN) #3 donned (put on) gloves and handled medication tablets with the gloved hands. RN #3's gloved hands came in contact with the medication cart drawers, medication blister packs, and medication bottles during the process. The finding is: The facility's policy titled Medication Administration Guidelines, effective 6/2017, documented steps including to properly cleanse hands prior to and after medication administration for each resident. The policy only addressed the use of gloves when administering Nitro paste (heart medication) to avoid unintentional absorption of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2021-07-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/2021 the facility did not ensure that food service equipments were clean. Specifically, the cooking range hood panels were observed to be soiled with heavy grime, grease, soot and debris build up. The finding is: During the initial kitchen tour on 7/6/2021 at 9:15 AM with the Food Service Director (FSD) present the entire cooking range exhaust hood (approximately 20 feet long) was observed with heavy grime, grease, soot and debris build up. The FSD stated on 7/6/2021 at 9:15 AM that they (the FSD) started as a FSD a month ago and noticed that the hood required cleaning. The FSD stated that the hood was last serviced by a cleaning company in January 2021. He stated that he contacted the cleaning company 2 weeks ago and was given an appointment for today evening. The FSD also stated that they could not assign staff to clean the exterior parts of the hood and its panels because three of the dietary staff were on vacation The FSD also stated that there is a weekly cleaning schedule assigned 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 · E2021-07-13 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, resident and staff interviews and record review during a Recertification survey, the Facility did not ensure that all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment were maintained in safe operating condition. This was identified for two of two Mechanical lifts (Sarita lifts) that were utilized to transfer residents from one surface to another. Specifically, the safety straps for positioning the residents' legs on both Sarita lifts were in disrepair. The finding is: Resident #45 was admitted with Diagnosis including Multiple Sclerosis, Muscle Spasms, Generalized Muscle Weakness and Neuro Muscular Dysfunction of bladder. The Physician's order dated 5/10/2021 included to transfer the resident with a Sarita Lift with two persons assistance to a standard or motorized wheelchair. Resident #45 was interviewed on 7/6/2021 at 10:33 AM and stated that the staff uses a Sarita lift to transfer the resident. Resident #45 stated that the strap that secures their left leg on the lift was broken for at least a month and they have to find a way to secure their left leg.…
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 · D2021-07-13 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 and Abbreviated Survey (complaint #NY 00273922) completed on 7/13/2021 the facility did not ensure that each resident has a right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that are significant to the resident. This was noted for one (Resident #45) resident reviewed for choices in a sample of 26 residents. Specifically, Resident #45 requested to be placed back to bed between 4:30 and 5:30 PM. The facility staff did not honor the resident's request consistently. The finding is: Resident #45 was admitted with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, Neuromuscular Dysfunction of the bladder and Generalized Muscle weakness. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating the resident had intact cognition. The MDS documented that the resident's speech, vision, and hearing were intact. The activities of daily living (ADL) section of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-07-13 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (NY00272845) completed on 7/13/2021 the facility did not ensure that each resident's physician was notified in a timely manner when there were clinical complications and a need to alter treatment for 1 (Resident #317) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization. Specifically, Resident #317 had an unstageable pressure ulcer to the sacrum and was identified to be newly malodorous by a Registered Nurse (RN) on 1/31/2021; however, the wound condition was not reported to the physician until 2/2/2021. The finding is: Resident #317 was admitted with diagnoses including Displaced Intertrochanteric Fracture Left Femur, Schizophrenia, and Muscle Weakness. The 1/13/2021 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, indicating the resident had mild cognitive impairment. The MDS documented the resident had one unstageable Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) and one unstageable pressure ulcer. A physician's order dated 1/6/2021 documented 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 · D2021-07-13 · 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 observation, record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/2021, the facility did not ensure that each resident had a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) developed that included measurable objectives and interventions to meet the resident's medical and nursing needs to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable well-being. This was identified for 1 (Resident # 53) of 1 resident reviewed for behavior and mood. Specifically, Resident #53 exhibited hoarding behavior and there was no CCP developed with goals and interventions to address this behavior. The finding is: Resident #53 was admitted with diagnoses including Antisocial Personality Disorder, Mood Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident had intact cognition. Resident #53 was observed in their room on 7/6/2021 at 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM) and on 7/7/2021 at…
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 · D2021-07-13 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on Observation, record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/2021, the facility did not ensure that the Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was reviewed and revised to reflect the resident's current care needs. This was identified for one (Resident #45) of 4 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and one (Resident #317) of three residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, 1) Resident #45 requested to be placed back to bed before supper and the facility did not review and revise the CCP to include the resident's preference. 2) Resident #317 with Pressure Ulcers had a CCP for use of Bilateral side rails as an enabler. The Bilateral siderails were removed and the CCP was not updated to reflect the siderail removal. The findings are: 1) Resident #45 was admitted with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, Neuromuscular Dysfunction of the bladder and Generalized Muscle weakness. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 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 · D2021-07-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/2021, the facility did not ensure that one (Resident #84) of three residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers was provided with necessary care and services to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychological well-being in a timely manner. Specifically, Resident #84 was readmitted from the hospital on 6/11/2021 with venous stasis ulcers and pressure ulcers. The facility did not assess and treat the ulcers until 6/14/2021, three days after the readmission. The finding is: Resident #84 has diagnoses which include Hypertension and Depression. The resident's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated that the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS also documented that the resident had one Stage 1 pressure ulcer, one Stage 3 pressure ulcer, one unstageable Deep Tissue Injury (DTI), and four venous and arterial ulcers.…
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 before2021-07-13 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY 00272845) completed on 7/13/2021 the facility did not ensure a resident with pressure ulcers receives services consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for one (Resident #317) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, Resident #317 was admitted to facility with a Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) to the sacrum, however, there was no documented assessment of the identified DTI. The finding is: The facility's policy dated 11/2019 titled Pressure Injury/Pressure Ulcer Assessment, Prevention, and Management documented that Deep Tissue Pressure Injury results from intense and/or prolonged pressure and shear forces at the bone-muscle interface and that all pressure injuries must be measured (length, width, and depth) at the time of identification and then at least weekly. Resident #317 was admitted with diagnoses including Displaced Intertrochanteric Fracture Left Femur,…
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 · D2021-07-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interviews and record review during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/2021, the facility did not ensure the residents' environment remains free of accident hazards. This was identified for 2 (Resident # 5 and Resident #75) of 2 residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, 1) On 7/8/2021 Resident #5 was observed with four razors within their room. 2) Oral medications were left unattended by the Registered Nurse (RN), Medication Nurse, in a cup on Resident #75's overbed table. The resident ingested the medications without the nurse being present. The findings are: The facility policy titled, Needle/ Syringe Disposal dated 11/2017 documented the facility is responsible to dispose used needles, syringes, or other items that may cause cuts or punctures into a red, sealable, puncture resistant and leak proof container. 1) Resident #5 was admitted with diagnoses including Cataract, Cerebral Infarction and Anxiety. The Quarterly 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 · Dcited before2021-07-13 · 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 interviews and record review during a Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint # NY 00273922) completed on 7/13/2021, the facility did not ensure that each Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) implemented the resident care plans as identified through resident assessment for one (Resident #45) of four residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Specifically, Resident #45 had a physician's order to utilize a Mechanical Lift (Sarita Lift) with assistance of two staff members. The assigned CNA (#6) and the resident both confirmed that the resident was transferred by CNA #6 alone rather than with two staff members as ordered by the Physician. The finding is: Resident #45 was admitted with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, Neuromuscular Dysfunction of bladder, and Generalized Muscle weakness. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated the resident had intact cognition. The MDS…
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 before2021-07-13 · 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, interviews, and record review during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/13/2021 the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 (Resident ##22) of 2 residents observed for wound care. Specifically, the wound care nurse did not follow proper hand hygiene during wound care observation to prevent cross contamination for Resident #22. The finding is: Resident #22 was admitted with diagnoses of Dementia, Peripheral Vascular Disease and Psychosis. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had long and short-term memory problems and moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and had 3 unstageable pressure ulcers. The Physician's Orders dated 6/29/2021 documented to cleanse left lateral foot wound with Dermaklenz, pat dry, wipe the periwound (the surrounding area of the wound) with sting free skin prep, allow to dry. Apply…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-03-21 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/17/2025 and completed on 3/21/2025 the facility did not ensure that nurse staff posting data was posted on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors. Specifically, The facility entrance lobby was observed on 3/17/2025 at 9:00 AM with the Daily Staff Posting dated 3/13/2025. There were no Daily Staff Postings for 3/14/2025, 3/15/2025, 3/16/2025 and 3/17/2025. Additionally, the Daily Staff Posting did not include the actual number of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff per shift. The finding is: During an observation on 3/17/2025 at 9:00 AM, a Daily Staff Posting dated 3/13/2025 was observed near the facility reception area. The Daily Staff Posting did not include the actual number of licensed and unlicensed staff directly responsible for resident care for each shift: 7:00 PM-7:00 AM, 3:00 PM-11:00 PM, and 11:00 PM-7:00 AM. During an interview on 3/20/25 at 1:29 PM, the Staffing Coordinator stated that the 7:00…
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 CASSENA CARE — 13 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 | 4.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEBENEDICTIS, PASQUALE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 23% | since 12/18/2019 |
| FRIEDMAN, LEOPOLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 46% | since 12/18/2019 |
| RUTENBERG, SOLOMON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 9% | since 03/08/2017 |
| SOLOVEY, ALEX | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 23% | since 12/18/2019 |
| DEROSA, ANTHONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/29/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $13.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 56% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335432. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-21, 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.