Independence Care Center for Nursing and Rehabilit
666 Kappock Street, Riverdale, NY 10463 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 190 certified beds · (718) 549-1203 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% 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 Aug 2024
- 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
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0570)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (33) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $66,859 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-02)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 1 to 2 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 | 10.6% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.5% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.6% | 19.5% | 6.5% | better 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 | 2.3% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.9% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.8% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.3% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.5% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.3% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.1% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 64.5% | 78.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.8% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.17 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.38 | 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.
37.2% 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 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 43.7% 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 71 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 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 32% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 29% 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 | 37.2%CMS range 24.3–55.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 8.1–16.9 | 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 | 43.7% | 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 | 49.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 50.7% | 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 | 99.1% | 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 | 94.4% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.8% | 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 | 5.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.7%CMS range 5.0–14.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.42 | 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 190 beds and averages 168.7 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 21 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.07 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.36 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.42 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.54 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.28 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.48 to 1.05 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
33 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-04-03 · 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 observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00320218), the facility did not ensure that a resident was free from physical abuse by nursing home staff. This was evident for 1 out of 3 residents sampled for abuse (Resident #1). Specifically, on 07/17/23 at 11:37:25 am, Resident #1, who was cognitively intact, reported to the Assistant Director of Nursing they were punched in the nose by Licensed Practical Nurse #1. Review of the facility's surveillance camera dated 07/17/23 at 11:37 am (real time) showed Licensed Practical Nurse #1 exiting Resident #1's room, retrieved their belongings, and exited the nursing unit. Resident #1 was seen crawling on hands and knees on the floor bleeding. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 left the nursing unit without reporting to Registered Nurse Supervisor #1 that Resident #1 was injured, or how Resident #1's injuries occurred. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that was not Immediate Jeopardy. The findings are: The Facility's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-08 · 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 record review and interviews conducted during an Abbreviated Survey (NY00362877), the facility did not ensure that the alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, or misappropriation of resident property were reported immediately, but not later that two (2) hours after the allegation is made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that caused the allegation do not involved abuse and do not involve serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Agency). This was evident in one (1) out of three (3) residents (Residents #3 and #4) sampled. Specifically, on 12/02/2024 at 7:12 AM, Resident #4 stated that Resident #3 threw a chair, and the chair hit them on their back. The facility reported the incident to New York State Department of Health on 12/02/2024 at 8:28 PM. The findings include: The Facility's Policy and Procedure titled Abuse and Neglect Policy with a revised dated 08/20/2024 documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00359953), the facility did not ensure that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent an elopement. This was evident for one (1) out of two (2) residents (Resident #1) sampled for elopement. Specifically, the facility Elopement Incident Timeline dated 11/08/2024 documented that the surveillance video footage showed at 2:46 PM on 11/07/2024 Resident #1 exited the facility grounds. Resident #1 was wearing a wander guard on their left ankle at the time they left the facility, and the wander guard alarm system did not activate. Facility staff became aware between 3:20 PM and 3:58 PM that Resident #1 was missing from the facility. Resident #1 was located by a facility staff at 10:45 PM on 11/07/2024 walking towards their home. Resident #1 had no injury but was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] at 12:18 AM for evaluation. The findings include:The facility's Policy and Procedure titled Resident Elopement…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-01 · 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 observation, interviews, and record reviews conducted during Abbreviated Survey (NY00348529), the facility failed to protect a resident from physical abuse by nursing home staff. This was evident in 1 out of 3 residents (Resident #1) sampled for abuse. Specifically, the facility's surveillance camera recording dated on 07/17/2024 at 4:56pm showed Resident #1 hit Receptionist #1's face and Receptionist #1 retaliated and hit Resident #1 on the top of their head. Resident #1 was assessed by Registered Nurse Supervisors #1 and #2 and there were no visible injuries. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure titled Abuse Prevention and Reporting was last revised on 03/18/2024. The policy states that residents will be free from abuse, neglect, mistreatment, exploitation, or misappropriation of property which include the following components: Screening, Timing, Prevention, Identification, Investigation, Protection and Reporting/response. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-01 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews and record review conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00348529), the facility did not ensure that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after a significant change. This was evident for 1 out of 4 residents (Resident #1) sampled. Specifically, the facility's surveillance camera recording dated 07/17/2024 showed Resident #1 was involved in an altercation with Receptionist #1. Resident #1 hit Receptionist #1 and Receptionist #1 retaliated and hit Resident #1 on the top of their head. Resident #1's Psychosocial Well-Being Care Plan was not updated to reflect on the abuse incident of 07/17/2024. The findings include: The facility Policy and Procedure for Comprehensive Care Plan revised on 10/2023 documented the interdisciplinary team in junction with the resident and their family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-02 · tag F0655 — patternCreate 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 interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 03/26/2024 through 04/02/2024, the facility failed to ensure that the resident and their representative were provided with a written summary of the baseline care plan. This was evident for 3 (Residents # 5, #39, and #119) of 3 residents reviewed for baseline care plan out of a total sample of 38 residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #5 did not get a copy of their baseline care plan summary. 2) Resident #39's representative did not receive a copy of the resident's baseline care plan summary, and 3) Resident #119's representative did not receive a copy of the resident's baseline care plan summary. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Care Plan - Baseline with a revised date of October 2023 documented that a baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate needs shall be developed for each resident within 48 hours of admission. The resident and their representative will be provided with a summary of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-02 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 03/26/2024 through 04/02/2024, the facility did not ensure that a resident's privacy was maintained. This was evident for 1 (Resident #119) of 1 resident reviewed for Privacy out of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, a Respiratory Therapist was observed performing tracheostomy care with the resident's room door opened. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Residents Rights, with a last revised date of November 2023, documented that the facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. Resident # 119 was admitted with diagnoses of Respiratory Failure and Tracheostomy Status. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #119 had severe impairment in cognition. The assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification and Complaint Survey (NY00331841) from 03/26/2024 through 04/02/2024, the facility did not ensure that a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed and implemented for each resident. This was evident for 5 (Resident #s 39, 82, 108, 109, and 253) of 38 sampled residents. Specifically, 1.) Resident #39 had no care plan in place for antibiotic therapy. 2.) A care plan was not developed to address Resident #108's preference to wear a night gown in the dayroom. 3.) Resident #82 had no care plan for hospice care. 4.) Resident #109 had no care plan developed to address wandering behavior. 5.) Resident #253 had no care in place for ecchymosis on the forehead. The findings include but are not limited to: The facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan with a revised date of 10/2023 stated that a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-02 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Complaint Survey (NY00327454) from 03/26/2024 through 04/02/2024, the facility did not ensure that each resident's comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team following an occurrence of resident-to-resident physical abuse. This was evident for 1 (Resident #35) of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, the comprehensive care plan was not reviewed and revised for Resident #35 following their involvement in a resident-to-resident altercation. The findings are: The facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 10/2023 documented a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. Resident #35 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Diabetes Mellitus, Acute Respiratory…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 03/26/2024 through 04/02/2024, the facility did not ensure that an ongoing activities program was provided based on the comprehensive assessment, care plan, and preferences of each resident, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This was evident for 1 (Residents #39) of 3 residents reviewed for Activities out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, there was no evidence Resident #39 was engaged in a meaningful activity program on the unit. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Quality of Life - Resident Self-Determination and Participation with the last reviewed date of November 2023 documented that the facility respects and promotes the right of each resident to exercise their autonomy regarding what the resident considers to be important facets of their life. Each resident is allowed to choose activities,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-02 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 03/26/2024 to 04/02/2024, the facility failed to address an irregularity identified by the pharmacist during Medication Regimen Review. This was evident in 1 (Resident #31) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, the pharmacist identified a potential medication irregularity during the Medication Regimen Review dated 02/28/2024 and recommended to change the administration time for Montelukast for maximum benefit. The facility did not address the irregularity. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure for Drug Regimen Review which was last revised on 02/2024 documented that the Consultant Pharmacist shall identify, document, and report possible medication irregularities for review and action by the attending Physician, where appropriate. The attending Physician or licensed designee shall respond to the Drug Regimen Review within 7-14 days or more promptly, whenever possible. Resident #31 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 22 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-02 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated Survey (Complaint #NY00331841) from 03/26/2024 through 04/02/2020, the facility failed to ensure that the resident and/or the resident's representative was immediately informed of an accident which results in injury and had the potential for requiring physician intervention. This was evident for 1 (Resident #253) of 2 residents reviewed for Notification of Change out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 01/15/2024 at 6:30 AM, Resident #253 was observed with discoloration on the forehead. There was no documented evidence that the resident's representative was notified of the change in resident's condition. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Change in Resident Condition or Status which was last revised in November 2023, documented that the facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her Attending Physician, and representative (sponsor) of changes in the resident's medical/mental…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Abbreviated Survey (NY00331841) from 03/26/2024 through 04/02/2024, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving injuries of unknown source were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, to the New York State Department of Health. This was evident for 1 (Resident #253) of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 01/15/2024 at 6:30 AM, Resident #253 was observed with discoloration to the forehead that was not reported to the New York State Department of Health. There was no witness on how Resident #253 sustained the discoloration and the source of injury could not be explained by the resident. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Abuse & Neglect, with a last revised date of 03/18/2024 documented that all alleged or suspected incidents of abuse and or neglect will be investigated, and injuries of unknown origin will be investigated to rule out abuse,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification and Complaint Survey (NY00318593) from 03/26/2024 through 04/02/2024, the facility did not ensure that each resident receives treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 (Resident #99) of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 03/29/2024, Resident #99's right and left lower extremities were observed with severe edema, dry, and thick scaly skin. There was no documented evidence that the skin condition was evaluated and being treated. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Quality of Care dated 11/2023 documented each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances their quality of life, dignity, respect, and individuality. Resident #99 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Acute Embolism and Thrombosis of Unspecified Deep Veins of Right Lower Extremity, Cellulitis of Right/Left Lower Limbs, and Localized Edema. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-03-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview conducted during the Recertification survey from 2/23/2022 to 3/2/2022, the facility did not ensure that infection prevention and control program practices were maintained. Specifically, 1) the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) failed to practice hand hygiene between glove changes during wound care, and 2)oxygen tubing was observed touching the floor on multiple occasions. This was evident for 1 of 7 residents investigated for Pressure Ulcer/Injury and 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Respiratory care out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #4 and Resident #107) The finding is: 1.The facility's policy titled Pressure Ulcer Prevention Management and Treatment Program, reviewed on 10/27/21, documented Standard precautions utilizing barrier protection: #2- use clean disposable gloves for removing soiled dressing and place in plastic bag, #3-Remove soiled gloves and wash hands. Resident #4 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that include Respiratory Failure, right basal…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-02 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY F578 Fieldston Lodge Care Center [NAME], LMSW Based on interviews, observations and record review completed during a recertification survey 02/23 - 03/02/2022, the facility did not ensure that advance directives were provided. Specifically, there was no evidence that staff assessed a resident's desire regarding advance directives. This was evident for one resident (Resident #420). The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure entitled Advance Directives, last reviewed 10/2021, stated that Social Work shall provide information concerning resident's rights to make decisions regarding medical care or treatment as soon as possible upon admission. The information will be reviewed with each resident, or with their health care proxy in lieu of capacity, and a copy provided to them. Resident #420 was admitted to facility 02/07/2022. The resident was noted to be alert and fully oriented. However, the resident's admission MDS had not yet been locked and posted so that a BIMS score was not available. A Resident is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-02 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 2/23/2022 to 3/2/2022, the facility did not ensure that residents' assessments were accurate. Specifically, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment (1). inaccurately documented that a resident had a diagnosis of Benign Prostate Hypertrophy (BPH), and (2). that a resident had an Indwelling catheter. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care and 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Urinary Catheter out of a sample 38 residents. (Resident #270 and Resident #4) The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled, MDS Assessment Coordinator, reviewed 10/27/21, documented that each individual who completes a portion of the assessment (MDS), must certify the accuracy of that portion of the assessment by a) dating and signing the assessment (MDS): and b) identifying each section completed 1). Resident # 270 was admitted with diagnoses that included Asthma and Respiratory Failure. Benign Prostrate Hypertrophy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY F656 Fieldston Lodge Care Center [NAME], LMSW Based on interviews, observations and record reviews completed during a recertification survey 02/23-03/02/2022, the facility did not develop a person-centered care plan for a resident consistent with that resident's medical needs. Specifically, a care plan was not developed to address the use of psychotropics, insulin, antihypertensives or anticoagulants. This was evident in 1 of 4 residents (Resident #140) reviewed for unnecessary medications in a sample of 35. The findings are: Resident #140 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's MDS dated [DATE] stated that the resident had received insulin on 7/7 days, antipsychotics on 7/7 days, antianxiety medications on 7/7 days, antidepressants on 7/7 days and an anticoagulant on 7/7 days. Resident #120's medical orders for 01/07/2022 were reviewed and were noted to include: Amlodipine 10 mg once a day for Hypertension Metoprolol 25 mg once a day for Hypertension Buspirone 15 mg once a day for Depression…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-02 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey 2/23/2022 to 3/2/2022, the facility did not ensure, to the extent practicable, that residents/resident representatives participated in the development of a Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP). Specifically, residents were not afforded the opportunity to participate in the care plan meetings. This was evident for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for Care Plan out of a sample of 38 residents. (Resident #12 and #121) The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled CCP (Comprehensive Care Plan) Participation - Assessment/Care Plans with effective date 10/27/2021 documented under Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1) The resident and his/her family, and/or the legal representative (sponsor), are invited to attend and participate in the resident's assessment and care planning conference; 3) A seven (7) day advance notice of the care planning conference is provided to the resident and interested family members. Such notice is made by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-02 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such 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 interview and record review conducted during a Recertification survey from 2/23/2022 to 3/2/2022, the facility did not ensure that pain management was provided to a resident who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. Specifically, nursing staff did not administer pain medications as per physician's orders to a resident who complained of pain on several occasions prior to wound dressing change. This was evident for 1 of nine 9 residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers out of 38 sampled residents. (Resident #150). The finding is: The facility policy titled Pain Assessment Procedure, last updated on 1/21/21 documented the following: The facility will utilize the interdisciplinary approach to assess each resident for acute and chronic pain and develop an effective program that will address those needs. The policy also documented that, every resident who experiences pain will be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-02 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification survey conducted from 2/23/22 to 3/2/22, the facility did not ensure that competent care and services were provided to assure safety and maintain the highest practicable level of mental and physical wellbeing for a resident. Specifically, a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) did not demonstrate competency and skills in providing care to a resident with pressure ulcers. The CNA cleaned the resident's pressure ulcers during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care and did not address the resident's concerns regarding pain during care. This was evident for 1 of 9 residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers out of 38 sampled residents. (Resident #150). The findings are: Resident #150 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included Diabetes, Stage 3 Pressure Ulcer, Pain to Left Arm, Pain to Left Lower Legs. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that the resident's cognitive status was intact, 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 · D2022-03-02 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, observations and record reviews conducted during a Recertification survey from 2/23/22 to 3/2/22, the facility did not ensure timely identification and removal of expired medications. Specifically, expired medications were observed in the medication room refrigerator on 1 of 5 units during the Medication Storage task. (4th floor) The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure entitled Storage of Medication last reviewed 10/2021, documented that the facility will not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals; all such drugs will be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. On 02/28/22 at 12:13 PM, the refrigerator in medication room on the 4th floor was observed. The following medications and manufacturer's expiry dates were observed: - Timolol eye drops with an expiration date of 10/26/2021 - a Glucagon vial with an expiration date of 11/21/2021 - a Novolog vial with an expiration date of 11/21/2021 - a Novolog vial with an expiration date of 12/15/2021 - a Novolog vial with an expiration date of 12/25/2021 and, - a Novolog…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-02 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 2/23/2022 to 3/2/2022, the facility did not ensure that medication error rates were not 5 percent or greater. Specifically, medications were not administered as ordered by the physician: 1). Acetaminophen 500mg was administered instead of instead of Acetaminophen 325mg as ordered and 2). Administration of Artificial tears was omitted leading to a medication error rate of 8%. This was evident for 2 of 25 medication observations conducted during the Medication Administration facility task. The findings are: 1.Resident #107 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Generalized Osteoarthritis and Pressure Ulcers. The Physician order dated 08/30/20 and last renewed 02/01/22 documented Acetaminophen 325mg 1 tablet 2 times daily for diagnosis of Generalized Osteoarthritis. On 03/01/22 at 10:42 AM, during a medication administration observation conducted on Unit 5, Registered Nurse (RN) #5 was observed administering Acetaminophen 500mg 1 tablet by mouth to Resident #107,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-03-02 · 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 observations and staff interviews conducted during a Recertification survey from 2/23/2022 to 3/2/2022, the facility did not ensure controlled drugs were stored appropriately in locked compartments. Specifically, controlled drugs were observed stored on the medication cart outside of the locked compartments for storage of controlled drugs. This was observed on 1 of 5 units during the Medication Storage Task. (Unit 5) The findings are: The facility policy titled Controlled Substances reviewed October 2021 documented controlled substances must be stored in the medication room in a locked container, separate from containers for any non-controlled medications. This container must remain locked at all times, except when it is accessed to obtain medications for residents. On 02/28/22 at 2:40 PM, an observation was conducted of the medication cart on Unit 5. The medication cart was observed parked next to the nurse's station as medications were not being administered at that time. Three blister packs containing controlled drugs were observed in the 4th drawer next to the locked…
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 · F2019-07-16 · tag F0570 — widespreadAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews the facility did not ensure a surety bond was purchased to assure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility. The findings are: The facility Policy titled, Deposit of Resident Funds documents, Resident personal funds held and managed by the facility will be safeguarded. On 07/15/19 at 03:15 PM an interview was conducted with Medicaid Coordinator (MC). Medicaid Coordinator who stated she is not aware of Surety bonds and believes the administrator is aware. On 07/16/19 at 12:32 PM an interview was conducted with the facility Administrator. The facility Administrator stated, The resident funds are supposed to have some type of backing so if God forbid something happens the funds are insured. The Administrator went on to state, the residents have individual accounts in the Amalgamated Bank and they are Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) insured because they are individual accounts. The Administrator further stated he is not aware of the protection of above and beyond FDIC insured requirements and stated he was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2019-07-16 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and record reviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure sufficient nursing staff to provide nursing and related services as determined by resident assessments considering the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment. The findings are: A Facility Policy and procedure related to Staffing and dated 7/16/19 documents that Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) are scheduled to work on each unit as follows: Unit Day Evening Night 2nd 5 4 3 3rd 4 3 2 4th 4 3 2 5th 5 4 3 6th 4 3 2 The Facility Assessment Tool dated 11/19/18 documents that each floor has the capacity for 40 residents for a total of 200 residents. The average census is 192 with 10 certified ventilator beds on the 2nd floor. On average, there are 18 residents who are ventilator dependent in the facility, 22 residents who require suctioning, and 22 who require tracheotomy care. There are also between 192-198 residents that require some form of assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2019-07-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility did not ensure that cold foods were stored at a temperature of 41 degrees F and below. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that it maintained proper temperatures of Potentially Hazardous Foods (PHF) to prevent food borne illness. After three observations the temperatures of sandwiches on 7/9, 7/15/ and 7/16 which were taken at various times, did not reach the required temperature of 41 degrees F or below. These sandwiches consisted of tuna, ham and cheese, baloney and cheese and turkey and cheese sandwiches. This was evident during the initial and follow-up visits for the Kitchen Task part of the survey. The facility policy and procedure titled Nutrition Service Policy and Procedures Section 7 Review Date 5/17/17 documented: The Dietary Department [NAME] or Supervisor will take all hot and cold food and beverage item temperatures three times per day. The temperatures will be monitored for accuracies within the acceptable safe temperature zone for each item. Procedure documents the following: (1) The [NAME]…
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 · F2019-07-16 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the residents received care in a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment is provided for residents, staff and the public. This was evidenced by multiple observations of the overall facility including facility common areas, and nursing stations and staff work areas. The facility policy and procedure titled Maintenance Policy and Procedure Manual Subject: Maintenance Repair request program, Maintenance Repairs Communication and Records: Effective 12/23/2017 documents: The Maintenance Department is responsible for establishing and maintaining work orders and requests, inspections of building, maintenance schedules. Maintenance work orders shall be completed to establish a priority of Maintenance service. Policy interpretation and Implementation:(1) In order to establish a priority of maintenance service, work orders must be filled out and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-07-16 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and Interviews the facility did not ensure that residents, or their representatives were invited to Care Plan meeting. Specifically, the facility held Annual Care Conferences for 4 residents and did not invite either the residents or their family members/next of kin to the meeting. The findings are: 1) Resident #178 is a [AGE] year old admitted to facility on 3/10/2015. Diagnosis includes Heart Failure, Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, , Hyperlipidemia, Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Bipolar Disorder. Minimum Data Set (MDS) 30 day Schedule assessment dated [DATE] documented resident is Cognitively Intact. Review of Social Services progress note dated 3/11/2019 documented Quarterly review -remains alert and oriented, verbally disruptive at times and is very demanding, attention seeker. Advance directives will be reviewed with her no less than quarterly. No documentation resident was invited to meeting. No documentation resident attended the meeting. No documentation resident refused to attend…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-07-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that infection control guidelines were followed to prevent the spread and development of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically,1) Residents were observed receiving Oxygen by nasal cannula with the oxygen tubing running from the nasal cannula along the floor and resting on the floor to the connection on the oxygen concentrator. Multiple residents receiving oxygen through a ventilator were observed to have oxygen tubing laying on the ground. This included, but was not limited to 2 (two) residents (Resident #1, Resident # 6). 2) Multiple Gastrostomy Tube (GT) poles for hanging tube feeding were observed to be dirty. The findings are: The facility policy titled, Oxygen Therapy protocol via nasal Cannula Respiratory Care/Nursing dated 9/2005 and reviewed 4/19 documents, Infection control 2) Oxygen tubing must be maintained off the floor, oxygen tube must be replaced with a new one without delay.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-07-16 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interviews conducted during recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that residents and/or families were informed and provided with written information concerning the right to formulate an advance directive. Specifically, the facility did not document that advance directives were explained to or discussed with family members and a resident's representative. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Advance Directives (Resident #142). The finding is : The facility policy and procedure on advance directives, reviewed 10/2018, documented, Social Work shall provide information concerning resident's rights to make decisions regarding medical care or treatment as soon as possible upon admission. The information will be reviewed with each resident, or with their health care proxy in lieu of capacity, and a copy provided to them. Social Worker will discuss advanced directives with the resident or health care proxy, designated representative, guardian or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-07-16 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status. Specifically, the resident's Level II status was not captured on resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0. This was evident for 1 of 63 sampled residents. The findings is: Resident #142 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included: Schizoaffective Disorder, Schizophrenia, Hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus, Non- Alzheimer's Dementia. Pre admission Screen and Record Review (PASRR form (a form to identify recommendations of inpatient psychiatric care for people needing more care than nursing homes provide) dated 10/3/18 documented that the resident has a serious mental illness. Level II referral was made. ASCEND (Maximus Company) Level II evaluation was completed 10/3/18 and recommended resident is appropriate for any Nursing Facility setting. Services to include written person-centered plan of care, ongoing psychiatric consults…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-07-16 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that drugs and biological's were stored in accordance with Federal and State regulations. Specifically, 1) A multidose vial of Tuberculin Purified protein Derivative (PPD) Tubersol was not labeled with a date of opening by the nursing staff, thus there is no indication as to when it should have been discarded. 2) Twelve multidose vials of Influenza vaccine were found to be outdated in the medication refrigerator located in the nursing supervisors office. The finding is: The facility policy titled, Opened Multidose Vials undated documents, Procedure - 1) The nurse who opens the vial must write the date on the label. 2) When the three (3) month time frame has elapsed, the vial must be disposed of according to the Drug Destruction Policy. Exceptions- 1) Opened vials of PPD test solution must be replaced after 30 days due to oxidation possible degradation of the solution. 2) Influenza vaccine- may stay…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$66,859 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $66,859 — penalty dated 2024-04-02
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE MAYER FAMILY — 11 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
The other 10 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAVIDOWITCH, NACHUM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 24% | since 09/01/2003 |
| EISIKOWICZ, SAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 09/01/2003 |
| LANDA, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 26% | since 09/01/2003 |
| MAYER, ANDREA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 12% | since 09/01/2003 |
| MAYER, GIORGIO | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 12% | since 09/01/2003 |
| RUBEN, YOSEF | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 11% | since 09/01/2003 |
| GEWIRTZ, JONATHAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 10/01/2011 |
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.
About 89% 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. This home reported $3.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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 335248. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-04-02, 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.