No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Parkview Care and Rehabilitation Center, Inc

5353 Merrick Road, Massapequa, NY 11758 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 169 certified beds · (516) 798-1800 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (516) 798-1800 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Nov 2021
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2021
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
12 Unqua Rd · (855) 321-6784 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Rite Aid0.5 mi
5125 Merrick Rd · (516) 798-7676 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
5601 Merrick Rd
Park
451 Unqua Rd · (516) 797-7990 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased10.9%14.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.1%5.8%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.4%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms16.8%19.5%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.4%3.1%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened7.5%12.5%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication25.2%13.2%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine93.4%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers7.6%6.5%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control9.1%19.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table6.6%13.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.6%1.2%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine56.6%78.8%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission21.4%20.6%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit8.7%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.251.701.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.261.361.80better

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.

46.5% 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 217 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

46.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
64.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.53U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.25hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.24hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 64.8% 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 125 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 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 27% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF46.5%CMS range 39.5–53.951.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.5%CMS range 7.0–13.010.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge64.8%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge64.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge68.8%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge97.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay1.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.8%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization8.4%CMS range 5.7–11.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.341.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.45
RN hours/ resident / day
0.72
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.99
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.16
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.21
RN hoursweekends
30.6%
Total nursing turnover
33.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 169 beds and averages 154.8 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 14 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 3.16 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.99 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 2.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.28 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-04-03)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2023-11-15)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-03 · tag F0636 — isolated
    Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
    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 3/27/2025 and completed on 4/3/2025, the facility did not conduct a comprehensive resident assessment within 14 calendar days after admission and not less than once every 12 months. This was identified for one (Resident #123) of one residents reviewed for the Resident Assessment Task. Specifically, Resident #123's five-day Prospective Payment System (PPS) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was not completed timely and in accordance with the Long Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual. The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure titled Completion of the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Process, last revised on 2/4/2025, documented that all assessments will be completed within the guidelines outlined in the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Manual. The Minimum Data Set Coordinator or other staff as designated by the coordinator will develop and maintain a schedule of assessment 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/27/2025 and completed on 4/3/2025, the facility did not ensure the comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident was developed and implemented to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs. This was identified for one (Resident #96) of five residents reviewed for Accidents. Specifically, the resident's care plan required the use of floor mats. On 3/27/2025, 3/28/2025, and 4/1/2025, Resident #96 was observed in bed with only one floor mat on the left side of the resident's bed. The finding is: The facility Floor Mat policy and procedure last updated in October 2024 documented that floor mats may be selected for use as deemed appropriate by the interdisciplinary team, and floor mats should only be on the floor when the resident is resting in bed. Resident #96 was admitted with diagnoses that included Altered Mental Status, Glaucoma, and Diabetes Mellitus. A Minimum Data Set…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-03 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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

    Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/27/2025 and completed on 4/3/2025, the facility did not ensure that each resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices. This was identified for one (Resident #14) of four residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, on multiple occasions, the weight setting on Resident #14's air mattress weight setting was not consistent with the resident's current weight as required by the physician's order. Additionally, during the wound care observation, the treatment nurse did not follow the physician's treatment order and left the resident's sacral wound uncovered after the topical cream was applied to the sacral wound. The finding is: The facility's undated/untitled policy related to the quality of care and air mattresses documented to provide an environment of care that promotes the highest quality of care and comfort for residents. This includes the treatment 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-03 · tag F0685 — isolated
    Assist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
    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 3/27/2025 and completed on 4/3/2025 the facility did not ensure that each resident received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing abilities. This was identified for one (Resident #96) of one resident reviewed for vision and hearing. Specifically, Resident #96 had a Physician's order for an Audiology consult dated 1/17/2025 and again on 3/18/2025 to evaluate the resident's hearing ability and for the functionality of the resident's hearing aids, which were brought in by the resident's family member, before the resident can start using the hearing aids. As of 4/3/2025, there was no documented evidence that an Audiology consult was completed for Resident #96. The finding is: The facility's Consultation and Diagnostic Services policy and procedure dated 10/2024 documented to ensure all residents receive medical care in a timely manner. Once an order for consultation has been written by 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-03 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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 observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey, initiated on 3/27/2025 and completed on 4/3/2025, the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. This was identified for one (Resident #299) of six residents observed during the Medication Administration Task. Specifically, Resident #299 had a change in the Physician's order for Oxycodone (a narcotic pain reliever). The medication dosage for Oxycodone was changed on the blister-pack label with hand-written dosage instructions written by a Licensed Practical Nurse, and the instructions were not accurate. The finding is: A review of the facility's policies titled Medication Storage dated 2/20/2025; Ordering and Obtaining Medications dated 3/1/2025; and Medication Administration and Documentation dated 2/20/2025 revealed that there was no guidance for nursing staff on updating dosage label changes. Resident #299 was admitted with…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-15 · tag F0655 — isolated
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    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 11/8/2023 and completed on 11/15/2023, the facility did not ensure that a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standard of quality care was developed within 48 hours of admission. This was identified for one (Resident #11) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Specifically, Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] with multiple areas of skin impairment. A Baseline care plan was not developed within 48 hours for the skin impairment as required. The finding is: The Facility's Baseline Care Plan Policy and procedure revised 4/2023 documented within 48 hours of a resident's admission, a base line plan of care for the resident's needs will be prepared, developed, and implemented. The policy documented the Nurse/designee will review the transfer orders and documentation to initiate goals 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 initiated on 11/08/2023 and completed on 11/15/2023, the facility did not implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. This was identified for 1) one (Resident #130) of one resident reviewed for Activities of Daily Living, and 2) one (Resident #439) of three residents reviewed for Communication. Specifically, 1) Resident #130, who had diagnosis of Diabetes, had a Physician's order to monitor the resident's blood glucose level and report the findings to the Physician if the blood glucose levels were less than 70 milligrams (ml)/Deciliter(dl) or greater than 300 ml/dl. In October 2023, on three occasions Resident #130's blood glucose level was greater than 300 ml/dl. The resident's Physician was not notified as per the physician's orders. 2) Resident #439, who has a diagnosis of Diabetes, had a Physician'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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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

    Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 11/8/2023 and completed on 11/15/2023, the facility did not ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised to meet each resident's current needs. This was identified for one (Resident #49) of six residents reviewed for Accidents. Specifically, Resident #49 required extensive assistance of one person for transfers as per the resident's nursing care instructions and Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). Resident #49 had non-compliant behavior of transferring independently. The facility staff were aware of the resident's noncompliance; however, the CCP was not updated to reflect the identified behavior. The finding is: The facility's policy, titled Accident/Incident, reviewed and revised 8/2022, documented a plan of care will be updated or initiated by the interdisciplinary team. The comprehensive care plan will be updated quarterly, and as needed, to develop staff awareness of fall/accident risk factors of potential preventative strategies and to prevent another fall/accident; as…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-15 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure 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 staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 11/8/2023 and completed on 11/15/2023, the facility did not ensure that a Physician Response (action) documented on a monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) was carried out to address an irregularity identified by the Pharmacist. This was identified for one (Resident #52) of five residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications. Specifically, a serum Valproic Acid (an anticonvulsant medication to treat Bipolar Disorder and migraine headaches) level was requested for Resident #52 by the Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 9/12/2023 in response to the Consultant Pharmacist's Recommendation dated 9/5/2023; however, no Physician's Order was documented in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and the serum Valproic Acid level was never obtained. The finding is: The facility's policy titled, Drug Regimen Review dated August 2022 documented that the Consultant Pharmacist shall review the medical record of each resident and perform…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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, interviews and records review during the Recertification Survey initiated on 11/8/2023 and completed on 11/15/2023 the facility did not ensure that all controlled drugs were appropriately stored. This was identified on one (West Unit) of two facility medication rooms. Specifically, on 11/9/2023 at 10:25 AM, a 1 milliliter (ml) vial of Lorazepam containing a small amount of solution was observed on the top shelf of the [NAME] Unit narcotic box. The vial was not refrigerated (as required per manufacturer's recommendation) or labeled with a resident's name. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure on Open Injectable Storage and Handling, dated 10/2022 documented that single dose vials of injectable medication that are opened shall be discarded in the sharps container or other disposal method that is safe from resident contact and retrieval. On 11/09/23 at 10:25 AM a vial of Lorazepam LOT# 092073 was observed on the top shelf inside of the [NAME] Unit narcotics box in the presence of…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2021-11-19 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY00274572) completed on 11/19/2021, the facility did not ensure resident rights to be free from abuse for one (Resident #235) of two Residents reviewed for Abuse. Specifically, Resident #232 hit Resident #235 when Resident #232 was attempting to lower the television volume in Resident #235's room. Both residents had a verbal exchange and Resident #232 hit Resident #235. Subsequently, Resident #235 was transferred to the hospital and returned to the Nursing Home with a hematoma to the right abdomen and a lip laceration with 3 sutures. The finding is: The facility Abuse Prohibition and Prevention policy dated 4/13/2021 documented each resident shall be free from abuse. Abuse means the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Willful means that the individual must have acted deliberately, not that 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-11-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 11/19/2021, the facility did not ensure that care was implemented according to each resident's care plan for one (Resident #37) of one resident reviewed for Hydration. Specifically, Resident #37 was observed receiving Intravenous (IV) fluid at a rate exceeding the rate indicated in the Physician's order. The finding is: The facility's policy titled Intravenous Therapy last reviewed on 8/2020 documented that the nurse will review the Physician's (MD) order when starting a peripheral IV line. Resident #37 was admitted with diagnoses including Hemiplegia, Cerebral Infarction and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident was rarely or never understood and the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was not conducted. A Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for Hydration dated 11/10/2021 documented Resident #37 has a need for IV therapy for…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-11-19 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 staff interviews during the Recertification Survey and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY00281022) completed on 11/19/2021, the facility did not ensure that each resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident #233) of two residents reviewed for Hospitalization. Specifically, Resident #233 was admitted to the facility from the hospital with a diagnosis of Myasthenia Gravis. The Hospital records received by the facility indicated there were 4 pages listing discharge medications; however, only three pages were received by the facility in the discharge paperwork. The facility did not follow up with the hospital to obtain the missing paperwork to reconcile all medications. This resulted in Resident #233 not receiving the Mycophenolate (Cellcept), a medication used to treat Myasthenia Gravis, until seen by the Neurologist, approximately 3 months after admission to the facility. 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2021-11-19 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide 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 completed on 11/19/2021, the facility did not ensure a system of records and accounts of all controlled drugs were maintained and reconciled. This was identified for two (Resident #55 and Resident 119) of two residents reviewed during the Medication Storage task. Specifically, Resident #55 was administered Oxycodone (a narcotic medication) Immediate Release (IR) 5 milligrams (mg) and Resident #119 was administered Tramadol (a narcotic medication) 25 mg without accurate reconciliation on the Controlled Substance Records (Narcotic Sheets). The findings are: During a Medication Storage observation on 11/19/2021 at 11:02 AM on the Center Nursing Unit, a review of narcotic medication was completed on the unit's medication cart. Resident #55's Control Substance Administration Record for Oxycodone IR 5 mg was reviewed. The Control Substance Administration Record documented the last tablet was used on 11/19/2021 at 8:00 AM and 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to PHILOSOPHY CARE CENTERS — 3 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.7+1.3 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.7-0.7 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.0≈ chain avg
The other 2 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
ORNSTEIN, MARTONIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST10%since 06/01/2023
PHILIPSON, BENTIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER15%since 06/01/2023
STRAUSS, JENNIFERIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST5%since 02/08/2017
TBK BANK SSBOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTERESTsince 02/28/2013
PITITTO, ROSEMARYIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 03/09/2015
LANDA, BENJAMINIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/01/2012

CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.

$20.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-28.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 76%Medicare 17%Other / private 7%

About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. 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

$500per resident / day
operating cost
$15,197per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$390per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in New York
$15,528/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$16,729/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,110/mo
Assisted living

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 335074. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-03, 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.

What to do next