Carmel Richmond Healthcare and Rehabilitation Cent
88 Old Town Road, Staten Island, NY 10304 · Non profit - Corporation · 300 certified beds · (718) 979-5000 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 federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (25% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jan 2025
- 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 2 actual-harm citations
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 held steady at 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 | 10.4% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.6% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.1% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 13.7% | 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 | 1.4% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.4% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.6% | 13.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.6% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.6% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.5% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.9% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.7% | 20.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.0% | 9.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.89 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.58 | 1.36 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
56.2% 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 1,016 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 84.7% 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 483 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% 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 | 56.2%CMS range 52.3–59.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.3%CMS range 10.5–14.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 84.7% | 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 | 85.9% | 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 | 82.2% | 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 | 99.8% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.3% | 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 | 7.6%CMS range 5.7–9.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 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 300 beds and averages 265.3 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 35 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.24 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.87 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.39 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.11 to 0.74 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 25% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gdisputed · IDR2026-03-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews during survey, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice to maintain their highest practicable physical wellbeing. This was evident for one (1) out of four (4) residents (Resident #1) sampled. Specifically, Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with intact skin to the sacrum (a triangular, shield-shaped bone at the base of the spine) and buttocks and subsequently developed moisture associated skin damage (erosion of the skin caused by prolonged exposure to urine, stool, sweat, or wound drainage.) Treatment was not initiated until [DATE] without documented evidence of the effectiveness of treatment between [DATE] and [DATE]. Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] with increased leukocytosis (increased white blood cells indicating infection) and was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with eight (8) new wounds, four (4) of which lacked a nursing assessment 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.
- Actual harm · Gdisputed · IDR2026-03-25 · tag F0710 — isolatedObtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews during a survey, the facility failed to ensure that medical care for each resident was effectively supervised by a physician. This was evident for one (1) out of four (4) residents (Resident #1) sampled. Specifically, 1) Resident #1 developed Moisture Associated Skin Damage (erosion of the skin caused by prolonged exposure to urine, stool, sweat, or wound drainage) to the sacrum (a triangular, shield-shaped bone at the base of the spine) and bilateral buttocks on 08/12/2025 and treatment was ordered on 08/14/2025 to be completed for 30 days. A Surgical Note by Physician Assistant #1 dated 12/17/2025 indicated wound deterioration. There was no documented evidence of effectiveness of treatment between 08/14/2025 and 09/14/2025.2) Resident #1 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with eight (8) wounds to various body areas, four (4) of which lacked nursing and physician assessment from 01/02/2026 through 01/10/2026. Additionally, there was no documented evidence of a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-25 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (ID#2720832), the facility failed to ensure that a designated resident representative was notified of changes in the resident's condition. This was evident in one (1) out of four (4) residents sampled (Resident #1). Specifically, Resident #1 was assessed on 08/14/2025 to have developed moisture associated skin damage (caused by prolonged exposure to moisture from sources such as urine, stool, sweat or wound drainage) to sacrum and bilateral buttocks and treatment was ordered. Resident #1's designated representative was not notified of changes in Resident #1's skin condition. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Notification of Resident's Change in Condition dated 04/2020 documented detection of a resident's change in condition can be reported to a licensed nurse by staff at any level, and to the resident's responsible party. The nurse is responsible for documenting in the medical record the date, time, and name, each time the Physician/Physician Extender, Resident or Responsible Party…
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 before2026-03-25 · 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 observation, record review, and interviews during the Abbreviated Survey (ID #2720832) the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set assessments accurately reflect each resident's status. This was evident in one (1) out of four (4) residents (Resident #1) sampled. Specifically, 1) Resident 1 was admitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE] and was identified with Cellulitis (a common, potentially serious bacterial skin infection). The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] assessment did not reflect Resident #1's skin condition. 2) the hospital discharged , and Patient Review Instrument dated 12/30/2025, revealed Resident #1 was discharged to the facility with eight wounds to various body areas. A facility admission note dated 01/02/2026 documented Resident #1 had wounds to sacrum, bilateral buttocks, bilateral hips, and gangrene to all toes and bilateral heels. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] did not reflect Resident #1's wounds. The findings are: The facility policy titled Minimum…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · 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 (NY00353123), the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to a resident to prevent accident. This was evident for one (1) of six (6) residents (Resident #3) sampled. Specifically, Certified Nursing Assistant #9 transferred Resident #3 out of bed to the recliner chair by themself at 8:00 AM [DATE]. After breakfast, Certified Nursing Assistant #9 transferred Resident #3 back to bed by themself at 10:51 AM. While Certified Nursing Assistant #9 was in the process of providing morning care to Resident #3 at 10:51 AM, they observed Resident #3 with a discoloration on the left inner thigh. Registered Nurse #2 and Registered Nurse Supervisor #3 assessed Resident #3 who had a bruise on the left inner thigh. An x-ray result dated [DATE] documented an acute fracture of the left hip. Resident #3 was transferred to hospital on [DATE] at 9:21 PM and returned to the facility on [DATE] at 3:45 PM with principal discharge diagnosis…
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 · D2025-01-27 · 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 during an abbreviated survey, (NY00368833), the facility did not ensure the residents' right to be free from physical abuse. This was evidence for one out of six residents reviewed (Resident #1). Specifically, on 01/13/2025 at 07:18 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 reported to Registered Nurse Supervisor #1, Certified Nursing Assistant #1 threw a cup of melted ice cream on Resident #1's. Registered Nurse Supervisor #1 assessed Resident #1 and observed a wet stain on the top of Resident #1's clothes. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure entitled Abuse Prevention, dated 10/2022, documented it is the policy of the organization to ensure that all residents are free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. The facility prohibits verbal, mental, sexual, and physical abuse and corporal punishment or involuntary seclusion by any staff, volunteer, or other resident. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE],…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 07/31/2024 to 08/07/2024, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, including injuries of unknown source were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was 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 New York State Department of Health. This was evident in 1 (Resident #132) of 6 residents reviewed for accidents, out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, the facility did not report to the New York State Department of Health an unwitnessed incident on 07/21/2024 when Resident #132 was observed on the floor with lacerations to the forehead and nose bridge. The findings are: The facility policy titled Identification, Investigation Protection and Reporting Physical 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 · D2024-08-08 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 07/31/2024 to 08/07/2024, the facility failed to ensure that a Significant Change in Status Assessment was completed within 14 days after a determination had been made in the resident's status from baseline occurred. This was evident in 1 (Resident # 167) of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcer / injury out of 35 total sampled residents. Specifically, on 06/30/2024, Resident #167 was identified with an unstageable pressure injury to the sacrum and deep tissue pressure injury to the left heel. The facility did not have a Significant Change in Status Assessment completed after the change in condition was identified. The findings are: The facility policy titled Minimum Data Set Completion with a revised date of 10/2023 stated that the Minimum Data Set is completed on all residents according to a mandated assessment schedule. The purpose of the policy was to ensure all Minimum Data Set assessments are completed in a timely manner…
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 · D2024-08-08 · 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 observation, record review, and interview conducted during the Recertification Survey from 07/31/2024 to 08/07/2024, the facility did not ensure that food was stored, prepared, and distributed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident during the Kitchen Task observation. Specifically, 1.) 2 boxes containing 20 (14 ounces) packages of bratwurst in the kitchen refrigerator and the freezer in the emergency food area were stored beyond the best by date, and 2.) potentially hazardous food were not maintained at an acceptable temperature to limit the growth of pathogen. The findings are: The facility's policy on Food and Supply Storage with a revised date of 03/2024 documented all food, non-food items and supplies used in food preparation shall be stored in such a manner as to prevent contamination to maintain the safety and wholesomeness of the food for human consumption. Most, but not all, products contain an expiration date. The words sell by, best by, enjoy -by or use-by should precede the date. Foods past the use-by, sell-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 · D2019-10-09 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessments were electronically transmitted to the Quality Improvement Evaluation System (QIES) Assessment Submission and Processing (ASAP) system in a timely manner. Specifically, a discharge assessment was not transmitted within 14 days after completion. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for the Resident Assessment task. (Resident # 4). The finding is: Resident #4 was discharged from the facility on 06/22/2019. Nursing progress note dated 6/22/19 documented resident was discharged home accompanied by ambulette attendants. Medications were reviewed and discharge instruction was given. Review of the medical record revealed no documented evidence that a discharge MDS assessment had been completed. On 10/07/2019 at 11:30 AM, the State Agent (SA) requested the discharge MDS. MDS Coordinator # 2 processed and transmitted the discharge assessment on 10/07/2019. On 10/08/2019 at 10:33 AM, an interview was conducted with MDS Coordinator…
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 before2019-10-09 · 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility did not ensure that the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) accurately reflected the resident's status. Specifically, (1) a resident with no pressure ulcer during the assessment period was documented on the MDS as having an unhealed Stage 2 pressure ulcer and, (2) a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder was not captured on the MDS of a resident receiving anti-anxiety medication. This was evident for 2 residents reviewed out of a total investigation sample of 38 residents. (Resident # 117 and 276). The findings are: 1. Resident #117 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Aphasia, Cerebrovascular Accident, and Hemiplegia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented the resident is totally dependent on two staff persons for bed mobility, transfer and toilet use. The MDS also documented that the resident had one unhealed Stage 2 pressure ulcer. 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.
“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.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to ARCHCARE — 7 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 5.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALBERTO, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2014 |
| BUJNO, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| CAHILL, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| CORTES, TARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2014 |
| FAHEY, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2014 |
| FELDMANN, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2014 |
| GLEASON, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| GRAY, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| JOHNSON, CLARION | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| KASERGRANDE, LESLIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| KELLEHER, RORY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/08/2009 |
| LAMORTE, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| O'BRIEN, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/08/2009 |
| PARK, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| ROBERTI, CYNTHIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| ROONEY, KATHRYN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2014 |
| SAPORITO, JOSEPH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| SERBAROLI, FRANK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/08/2009 |
| SWEENEY, GERALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/01/2014 |
| TOOKER, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| WHISTON, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/02/2024 |
| COVONE, ANNMARIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/02/2024 |
| LARUE, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/02/2024 |
| CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/08/2009 |
| AUGUSTINE, GEMMA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/02/2024 |
| ESPOSITO, GINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/02/2024 |
| TIRADO, MIGUEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/02/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 27 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.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.5M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 335455. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-08, 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.