United Hebrew Geriatric Center
391 Pelham Road, New Rochelle, NY 10805 · Non profit - Corporation · 294 certified beds · (914) 632-2804 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (18% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.7% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.2% | 5.8% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 1.5% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 33.5% | 19.5% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.9% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.0% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.2% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.2% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.6% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.5% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.3% | 13.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.4% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.0% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.8% | 9.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.88 | 1.70 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.44 | 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.
72.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 618 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 75.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 189 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 | 72.3%CMS range 68.5–75.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 7.7–11.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 75.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 67.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 74.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.2% | 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 | 97.7% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 98.8% | 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 | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.2% | 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 | 7.3%CMS range 5.1–8.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 294 beds and averages 165.8 residents a day — about 56% occupied, or roughly 128 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 4.06 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.96 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.47 is at or above 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 3.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.15 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.03 to 0.80 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 18% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, interviews, and observations conducted during an abbreviated (2968858) survey, the facility did not ensure that a resident was free from abuse. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents sampled for abuse. Specifically, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 is seen in video footage dated 03/26/2026 hitting the back of Resident #1's head.The facility policy #276 for abuse prevention last reviewed January 2025 documented that it was their policy to ensure all residents were free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. Resident #1 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance. An admission minimum data set (an assessment tool) dated 11/27/2025 documented the resident had a brief interview of mental status score of 4, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident #1 had behaviors of wandering and rejection of care that occur 1 (one) to 3 (three) days and impairment on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (2968858), the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and law enforcement) in accordance with State law through established procedures. This was evident in one out of three residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). Specifically, an alleged incident of abuse involving Resident #1 was reported to facility staff on 03/26/2026 and the facility did not report the allegation of abuse to the Department of Health or law enforcement until 03/30/2026.Review of the facility's abuse prevention and reporting policy #276 last…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · 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
Based on record review, and interviews during an abbreviated survey (2968858), the facility did not ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and implemented to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one (1) of three (3) residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment and was involved in a documented incident on 03/26/2026 where abuse occurred and an abuse care plan was not initiated. Review of the facility policy #2-214 comprehensive person-centered care plan dated 1/2023 documented that a comprehensive person-centered care plan is developed for each resident to include measurable goals, objectives and timeframe to meet the resident's medical, nursing, rehabilitation, psycho-social, cultural and nutritional needs. These needs are identified from the IDC (interdisciplinary care) team assessment.Review of the facility's abuse prevention and reporting policy dated 2/2016 and reviewed/revised 1/2025 documented the interdisciplinary team identifies resident risk factors and plans 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-09 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility did not ensure a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage is given by the facility to all Medicare beneficiaries at least two days before the termination of services for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #194) reviewed for Beneficiary Notification. Specifically, there was no documented evidence that Resident #194 and/or their representative received and signed a two (2) day Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage before termination of services. The findings include: Resident #194 was admitted with diagnoses including unspecified dementia, atherosclerotic heart disease and unspecified atrial fibrillation. The 09/10/2025 admission Minimum Data Set (an assessment tool) documented Resident #194 had severe cognitive impairment, received 100 minutes of occupational therapy and 130 minutes of physical therapy. The 10/20/2025 Notice of Discharge/Transfer documented Resident #194 would be discharged on 10/24/2025.The Beneficiary Protection Notification Review form documented by the former social worker revealed Resident #194's last covered day of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-09 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not ensure that drugs and biologicals were maintained in accordance with current professional standards for storage, labeling and expiration dates during review of medication storage on two (2) of four (4) units. Specifically, 1) observation of the fourth-floor medication cart revealed one (1) insulin pen with no open date and one (1) insulin pen with no patient label and no open date. The fifth-floor medication cart revealed two (2) insulin pens which had not been discarded within 28 days after opening as per the manufacture's recommendation, and 2) a physician ordered Trelegy Ellipta (inhaler) was left in Resident #155's room on the bedside table. The findings include: 1) The 8/2020 policy titled Administration Procedures for All Medications documented when opening a multidose container, place the date on the container. During observation on 12/02/2025 at 10:51 AM, the medication cart on unit 4 Skalet revealed one Lantus Solostar insulin pen labeled with Resident # 5's name which had no open date and one Admelog…
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 · D2023-10-06 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey from 10/2/23 to 10/6/23, the facility did not ensure that care was provided in a manner that maintained dignity for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for catheters. Specifically, Resident #7 urinary catheter drainage bag was not concealed to prevent direct observation of urine by others. The findings are: The facility policy, titled, ' environment that preserves dignity, and contributes to a positive self image' documented it is the policy of the facility to ensure and respect each residence, rights to dignity, and contribute to a positive self image, which included to care for a residence in a manner, and in an environment, that promotes maintenance or enhancement of each residence, quality of life. The facilities policy titled, 'Urine drainage bags' did not include documentation related to privacy covers for the urine drainage bag. Resident #7 had diagnoses included urinary retention, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and obstructive and reflux uropathy. The Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-06 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and record review during the recertification survey from 10/2/23 to 10/6/23, it was determined the facility did not ensure an ongoing program of activities was provided to meet the needs and interests of, and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the residents, based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #18) reviewed for activities. Specifically, Resident #18 voiced concern about the facility's cuts to their activities programming and how it negatively affected their daily quality of life. The findings are: A facility policy titled, 'Therapeutic Recreation Services', last revised 1/2000, documented, It is the policy of this facility to provide activities that are multi-faceted and reflect each individual resident's needs. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to atrial flutter, spinal stenosis, and major depressive disorder. The 7/14/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), documented Resident #18 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status of 15…
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 · D2023-10-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review during a recertification survey from 10/2/23 to 10/6/23, the facility did not ensure food was served under sanitary conditions for 2 of 12 residents (Residents #335 and #126) . Specifically, registered nurse (RN) #1 did not perform hand hygiene between serving residents while passing out food during a breakfast meal to prevent cross contamination and infection and was wearing gloves to serve meals. Findings include: The facility Hand Hygiene policy revised 9/28/18 documents hand hygiene is the single most effective action in the prevention of transmission of infection. Careful hand hygiene must be performed before and after any direct resident care. During an observation on 10/02/23 at 8:23 AM, RN#1 passed breakfast meal trays to residents on the 2nd floor dining room while wearing gloves. RN#1 took a tray and with gloves on their hands delivered it to Resident #335. While still wearing the same gloves, RN#1 returned to the food supply room next to the serving station and touched the keypad with the gloved finger to place a code 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 · D2023-10-06 · 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 interview during the recertification survey (10/2/23-10/6/23) the facility did not ensure that staff maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, two Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) were observed not using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while assisting a resident that was on contact precautions and when CNAs exited the resident room, did not perform proper hand hygiene. The findings are: The Facility policy for Transmission Based Precautions dated 8/30/2022 documents signage outside the resident's room will be posted to communicate precautions to all healthcare personnel. Signage for Contact Isolation and verbal communication between staff can enhance compliance to minimize transmission of infection. Wear a gown and gloves for all interactions that may involve contact with the resident and their environment. The facility policy for Hand Hygiene dated March 2017…
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 · D2019-06-13 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that for 1 of 2 residents (#180) reviewed for hospitalization that the resident or her representative were given timely written notification of the bed hold policy before transfer in a language and manner they could understand. The findings are: Resident #180 was admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses include but are not limited to anemia, hypertension, heart failure, macular degeneration and osteoporosis. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment and screening tool) dated 12/21/2018 indicated that Resident #180 is cognitively intact. Review of a 3/15/2019 nursing note showed that Resident #180 was transferred to the emergency room and admitted with a diagnosis of multiple fractures resulting from a fall. Resident #180 was subsequently discharged from the hospital and returned to the facility on 3/18/2019. Review of the medical record and interview with the Director of Social Work on 6/13/2019…
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 · D2019-06-13 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist 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 upon interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing ability. This was evident for 1 of 38 residents reviewed. (Residents#109). The findings are: Resident #109 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The annual MDS (minimum data set-a resident assessment tool) dated 10/23/18 documented the resident was cognitively intact, had minimal difficulty hearing, used a hearing aid or other hearing appliance, made himself understood, and understood others. Subsequent quarterly MDS assessments on 12/22/18, 3/6/19 and 4/14/19 all documented that the resident had minimal difficulty hearing, used a hearing aid or other hearing appliance, made himself understood, and understood others. The comprehensive care plan (CCP) for communication dated 12/10/16 documented the following; resident had adequate hearing…
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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| VILLANUEVA, CHRISTINA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/24/2014 |
| HARTMAN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/12/2014 |
| MABLI, RITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2000 |
| ALPERT, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2008 |
| DE LANDE LONG, RABIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2019 |
| GERSPACH, DORETTE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2019 |
| GORDON, BRUCE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2017 |
| LAZARUS, MALCOLM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2021 |
| MCLAUGHLIN, ROSEMARY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2014 |
| PLATZNER, HARRIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2003 |
| STAUDT, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/12/2014 |
| TOMBACK, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/1978 |
| TRUMAN SMITH, SHIRLEY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NY
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335621. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-09, 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.