Nyack Ridge Rehabilitation And Nursing Center
476 Christian Herald Road, Valley Cottage, NY 10989 · For profit - Partnership · 160 certified beds · (845) 268-6861 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 (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (40) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $39,130 in federal fines (most recent 2023-09-25)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 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 and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its 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 | 4 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 held steady at 1 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 | 9.4% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.9% | 5.8% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 3.5% | 1.3% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.8% | 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 | 2.9% | 3.1% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.8% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.5% | 13.2% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.7% | 6.5% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.9% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.0% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 78.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.3% | 20.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.1% | 9.6% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.58 | 1.70 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.82 | 1.36 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
47.8% 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 207 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 53.5% 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 99 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 0.41 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 70% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 47.8%CMS range 40.5–54.4 | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 8.0–14.2 | 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 | 53.5% | 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 | 48.5% | 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 | 49.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 4.1% | 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 | 9.8%CMS range 7.1–12.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.29 | 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 160 beds and averages 152.7 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.32 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.98 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 2.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.48 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% 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.
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.
40 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 27 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-09-25 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent falls. for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #129 and #145) reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident #129 sustained injuries related to falls between 8/19/2023 and 8/22/2023 : one injury required staples to the back of the head and one injury resulted in left arm proximal (nearer to the trunk of the body) and left arm distal (further from the trunk of the body) wounds (injuries that break the skin or other body tissue). Subsequently, Resident #145 had 5 falls between 7/4/2023 and 9/21/2023; one of which resulted in a right hip fracture on 8/13/2023. There was no documented evidence that the facility revised resident care plans or implemented interventions and/or physician orders to prevent falls. This resulted in actual harm for Resident #129 and Resident #145 which was Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of care with the likelihood of risk for harm to the health and safety of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited beforedisputed · IDR2026-06-04 · 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
Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility did not ensure the resident environment remained as free from accident hazards as possible and did not ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 4 (Residents #1, #3, #5, and #6) of 6 residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, 1. Resident #1, who had a history of behavioral symptoms including refusal of care and agitation during care, sustained a 4 centimeter by 1 centimeter laceration to the head when Certified Nurse Aide #6 shaved the resident's head while providing care. Resident #1 was transferred to the emergency room and required four staples. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that was not immediate jeopardyThe Findings include: The facility policy titled Accident/Incident Prevention and Reporting Policy, reviewed/revised April 2025, documented the facility shall maintain practices designed to promote resident safety, reduce the risk of accidents and incidents, and ensure timely reporting, assessment, documentation, and follow-up of events involving residents. 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-11-04 · 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 the Abbreviated Survey (#2583624), the facility did not ensure that the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident #1 was transferred by Certified Nurse Aides #1 and #2 with a new mechanical lift they had not received training on. The lift tilted during the transfer, hitting Resident #1 on the head. Resident #1 sustained a laceration to the head and was transferred to the hospital for emergency care and received staples for the laceration. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #1 that was not Immediate Jeopardy.The findings include: The policy titled 'Mechanical Lift (Hoyer Lift) Use and Safety' revised on 01/2025, documented the Hoyer lift was to be used in accordance with manufacturer guidelines and facility protocols to safely transfer non-weight-bearing residents or those needing assistance. Staff requirements to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-04 · 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
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during Abbreviated Surveys, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services to attain or maintain residents' highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being in accordance with professional standards of practice for two (Residents #3 and #7) of six residents reviewed for quality of care. Specifically, 1. Resident #3, who had impaired cognition and poor safety awareness was identified as a high risk for falls and required 30-minute monitoring and visual checks. On 04/23/2026 at 1:19PM, Resident #3's 30-minute monitoring form documented monitoring observations through 2:30 PM prior to the required observation times occurring. 2.Resident #7, who required every 30-minute visual checks due to a history of falls, did not have required monitoring observations documented from 7:30 AM through 1:30 PM at the time of surveyor review and the reason for monitoring identified as Other was not specified on the monitoring form.Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during Abbreviated…
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 · E2025-01-14 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification and abbreviated (NY00343179) survey from 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. This was evident for 1 of 2 resident floors (3rd Floor) during observation of the environment. Specifically, the 3rd Floor was observed with foul, pervasive, and strong odor of urine and feces on multiple occasions; shower rooms with hanging ceiling tiles, stained wall and floor tiles, and stained worn shower chairs; there were multiple resident rooms with soiled and stained bathrooms, broken light fixtures, and dirty, spackled walls with mismatched paint; and, there was a floor dayroom with soiled bins of dolls and stuffed animals, marked floors, and scratched damaged walls. The findings are: The facility policy titled Quality of Life - Homelike Environment dated 6/2024 documented staff and management shall maximize characteristics of the facility including…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-14 · tag F0661 — patternEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00335588, NY00358884) from 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure the completion of discharge summaries for 3 out of 3 residents (Resident #124, #247 and #245) reviewed for discharge. Specifically, 1) Resident #124's electronic medical record did not contain a discharge summary. 2) Resident #247 was severely cognitively impaired and discharge did not include adequate communication with the resident's family regarding injectable medications. 3) Resident #245's discharge summary and instructions were incomplete and did not included a recapitulation of the residents' stay. The finding is: The policy and procedure titled Discharge the Resident revised 7/2024, documented that when a resident is discharged to home, the facility must ensure that the resident and responsible parties receive teaching and discharge instructions. when discharge is anticipated, the facility must ensure that a transfer summary 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 · E2025-01-14 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status. This was evident for 2 (Resident #80 and #25) of 8 residents reviewed for Nutrition. Specifically, 1) interventions were not identified, implemented, monitored, and modified to prevent and address Resident #80's significant weight loss, and 2) interventions were not identified, implemented, monitored, and modified to prevent and address Resident #25's significant weight loss. The findings are: The facility policy titled Nutritional assessment dated 9/2024 documented the nutritional assessment includes gathering data to help define meaningful interventions for a resident at risk for impaired nutrition. The multidisciplinary team will identify the resident's usual body weight, current body weight, description of intake and appetite, preferences, medication regimen, clinical conditions, and cognitive…
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 · E2025-01-14 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide 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 interview and record review conducted during the Recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00348193) from 01/06/25 to 01/14/25, the facility did not ensure that sufficient nursing staff was consistently provided to meet the needs of residents on all shifts. Specifically, 1) multiple residents reported during the Resident Council Group meeting that the facility was short staffed and did not have sufficient nursing staff to care for the residents, there was a lack of timely staff response to call bells, 2) several nursing staff members reported working double shifts on the weekends; and 3) analysis of the actual staffing schedule showed that on multiple occasions from December 6, 2024 through January 6 2025, the facility was below the minimum levels documented on the Facility Assessment. Findings include: The facility assessment titled Facility Review/ Input revised July 5, 2024, documented nursing staff ratios in long-term care and short-term care (subacute) units for the day shift 1 nurse for 20 residents, evening shift 1 nurse for 20 residents, and night shift 1 nurse for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/6/25 to 1/14/25, the facility did not ensure that food was stored and prepared in accordance with professional standards for food safety practice. Specifically, 1) Opened and undated food was stored in refrigerators, freezer, and the dry storage room. 2) Employee stored personal food in the freezer and kitchen reach-in refrigerator that was not designated for employee food storage. 3) Expired food items were observed in the emergency food supply and reach in refrigerator. 4) Hot food was held below 135 degrees Fahrenheit the steam table and cold turkey was at 51 degrees Fahrenheit. Findings include: The facility policy Refrigerators and Freezers updated December, 2024 documented all food shall be appropriately dated to ensure proper rotation by expiration dates. Supervisors will be responsible for ensuring food items in pantry, refrigerators, and freezers are not expired or past perish dates. The facility policy Food…
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 before2025-01-14 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review during the Recertification survey from 01/06/2025 through 01/14/2025, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a dignified dining experience for 3 of 30 residents (Residents #48, #345, and # 30) reviewed for dignity while dining. Specifically, facility staff were observed standing over Residents #48, #345 and #30 while assisting the residents with their meals. The findings include: The facility policy titled Resident [NAME] of Rights revised date 4/2023, documented residents are treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of their dignity and individually, including privacy in treatment in care of their personal needs. The facility policy titled Assistance with feeding updated 10/2024, documented the facility staff will serve resident trays and will help residents who require assistance with eating. Resident who cannot feed themselves will be fed with attention to safety, comfort, and dignity. Staff should not stand over residents…
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 · D2025-01-14 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 11/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident was provided with notice of changes in Medicare coverage of items and services. This was evident for 1 (Resident #118) of 3 residents reviewed for skilled nursing facility beneficiary notification. Specifically, Resident #118 was provided a written Notice of Medicare Non-coverage and Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage despite the resident's inability to understand the content of the notices. The findings are: The facility policy titled Notice of Covered and Non-Covered Services dated 2024 documented if changes in coverage are made to items and services covered by Medicare, residents are notified in writing as soon as possible. Resident #118 had diagnoses including dementia and psychotic disorder. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #118's family participated in the assessment and was an information source for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-14 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review during the Recertification Survey from 1/6-1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure that residents were aware of the grievance process or that they were notified of their right to, and process of, filing a grievance with the facility or independent entities through postings in prominent locations throughout the facility. Specifically, 16 of 16 residents in attendance at the Resident Council meeting were not aware of the grievance filing process. In addition, signage for the grievance process, ombudsman contact information, and Complaint hotline was not found throughout the facility for resident view. The Facility Grievance Policy last reviewed 10/2021 documented that the facility will provide a mechanism for filing a grievance. Residents will be informed orally and in writing of their right to make complaints. Resident Council will review the grievance process at Resident Council on an annual basis and as needed. Grievance may be given to any staff member who will forward it to the Grievance Official. Resident Council minutes for October,…
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 · D2025-01-14 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification survey from 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident was free from physical restraints imposed for convenience and not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. This was evident for 1 (Resident #25) of 3 residents reviewed for falls. Specifically, Resident #25 was observed with a concave mattress in place to reduce the resident's fall risk by preventing the resident from getting out of bed. The findings are: The facility policy titled Use of Restraints dated 11/2024 documented physical restraints are defined as devices or equipment attached to or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, and which restricts freedom of movement. Restraints may only be used when the resident has a specific medical symptom that cannot be addressed by another less restrictive interventions and treats a medical symptom and protects the resident's safety and helps the resident attain…
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 27 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-14 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification survey from 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure that a complete preadmission screening for individuals with a mental disorder was conducted. This was evident for 1 of 30 residents (Resident #86) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR). Specifically, the SCREEN DOH 695 form was incomplete and a determination of a resident's need for Level II services had not been documented. Answers to items 27, 28, 29 and 30 were not documented. The findings are: Resident # 86 was admitted from acute care hospital with diagnoses and conditions including but not limited to bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder and parkinsonism. The Policy on Resident Assessment -Coordination with PASRR Program dated 4/2024 documented the facility coordinates assessment with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) program to ensure that individuals with serious mental illness and or individuals with intellectual disability/developmental disability, who apply or reside in Medicaid certified beds…
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 · D2025-01-14 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a Recertification survey from 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure residents at risk for pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote wound healing and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for Pressure Ulcers. Specifically, Resident #25 did not receive pressure relieving devices to promote pressure ulcer healing in accordance with the Physician Order. The findings are: The facility policy titled Pressure Injury Assessment, Management, and Intervention dated 7/5/2024 documented pressure injury interventions included meticulous skin care, relieving pressure using positioning pillows, nutritional support, and care planning. Resident #25 had diagnoses of schizophrenia, pressure injuries, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #25 had a significant…
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 before2025-01-14 · 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, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident remained free of accident hazards. This was evident for 1 (Resident #44) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents. Specifically, Resident #44 was fed a mechanically altered diet by unqualified and unsupervised staff. The findings are: The facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living dated 4/2024 documented appropriate care and services will be provided for residents including support and assistance with dining. The facility policy titled Nutritional assessment dated 9/2024 documented as part of the comprehensive assessment, the nutritional assessment will be a systematic, multidisciplinary process to help define meaningful interventions for a resident at risk for or with impaired nutrition. The facility Job Description for Transport Aide documented the Transportation Aide was responsible for the safe and timely transportation of residents to and from…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-14 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 1/6-1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #46 and Resident #107) reviewed for Respiratory Care. Specifically, 1) Resident #46 was provided oxygen 3 liters via nasal cannula with a physician order for 2 liters; and 2) Resident #107 was provided oxygen 3 liters via nasal cannula with a physician order for oxygen 2 liters. In addition, the nasal cannula and humidified water bottle for Resident #107 was not dated. The Findings include: The Facility Policy titled Oxygen Administration updated July 2024 documented that the purpose is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration. Adjust the oxygen delivery device so that it is comfortable for the 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 · D2025-01-14 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and review of the facility's records during the Recertification survey from 1/6/2025 through 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure Certified Nurse Aide performance reviews were completed at least once every 12 months. Specifically, six of six randomly selected Certified Nurse Aides (#29, #30, #31, #32, #33, and #34) did not have a performance review documented at least once every 12 months. Findings include: Review of records provided by the facility on 1/7/2025 revealed Certified Nurse Aides #29, #30, #31, #32, #33, and #34 had been working at the facility for more than one year, their hire dates ranged from 2000 through 2018. During an interview on 1/7/2025 at 5:07 PM, the Human Resources/ Staffing Coordinator stated the Certified Nurse Aides' performance evaluations were not completed and they had a recent discussion with the Director of Nursing. During an interview on 1/08/25 at 11:00 AM, the Nurse Educator stated they conducted the mandatory in-services for the staff on the units and in the classroom. They stated the annual performance evaluations for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-14 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review conduced during the Recertification survey from 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure a resident diagnosed with dementia, received the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. This was evident for 1 (Resident #30) of 2 residents reviewed for Dementia Care and 1 (Resident #122) of 1 resident(s) reviewed for Activities. Specifically, 1) treatment of Resident #30's dementia and related behaviors did not include a person-centered individualized approach or meaningful activities to address the resident's customary routines and preferences, and 2) there was no evidence Resident #122's plan of care included meaningful activities that enhanced the resident's wellbeing. The findings are: The facility policy titled Dementia Care of Resident dated 2/2024 documented restlessness in people with dementia gets worse at the end of the day. Increase daytime 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 · Dcited before2025-01-14 · 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 and interviews conducted during a Recertification survey from 1/6-[DATE], the facility did not ensure drugs and biologicals were maintained in accordance with currently accepted professional standards, labeling, expiration date, and storage of medication at proper temperatures. Specifically, expired feedings, supplies, and test kits, open unlabeled medications, and a medication storage refrigerator temperature above the acceptable range, were found in one of one medication storage rooms (Second Floor Unit) examined for medication storage. The findings are: The Facility Policy titled Storage of Medication updated 12/2023 documented that drug containers that have missing, incomplete, improper, or incorrect labels are returned to the pharmacy for proper labeling before storing. Discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals are returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. During observations on [DATE] at 1:38 PM in the second floor unit medication storage room, the following…
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 before2025-01-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interviews conducted during a Recertification survey on 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025 the facility did not maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection. This was evident for 2 (Resident #69 and #25) of 5 residents reviewed for pressure injuries and 1 of 2 residents (Resident #121) reviewed for urinary tract infections. Specifically, 1) Resident #69 was on enhanced barrier precautions and a certified nurse aide was observed providing care without proper personal protective equipment; 2) Resident #121 had a history of urinary tract infections and their catheter bag was observed lying directly on the floor; and 3) the Wound Care Nurse did not perform handwashing or don a gown while performing wound care on Resident #25. Findings include: 1) Resident #69 was admitted with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus, Nutritional Anemia, and a Stage 3 pressure ulcer. The Minimum Data Set (an…
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 · D2025-01-14 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews conducted during a Recertification survey from 1/6/2025 to 1/14/2025, the facility did not implement an antibiotic stewardship program that included antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. Specifically, the facility could not provide documentation as requested on 1/10/2025 of tracking antibiotic use which included appropriate use of antibiotics, results of laboratory tests and duration of antibiotic treatment for November 2024, December 2024, and January 2025. The findings are: The Policy on Antibiotic Stewardship updated in 2024 documented the purpose of Antibiotic Stewardship Program is to monitor the use of antibiotics in our residents. When a culture and sensitivity (C & S) is ordered laboratory results and the current clinical situation will be communicated to the prescriber as soon as available to determine if antibiotic therapy should be started, continued, modified or discontinued. During an interview on 1/10/2025 at 1:08 PM, the Infection Control Preventionist stated it was their responsibility to track…
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 · D2025-01-14 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during the Recertification survey 1/6/25 to 1/14/25 the facility did not maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pasts. Specifically, the facility kitchen was observed to have live and dead roaches. Findings are: The facility policy and procedure titled Pest Control updated December, 2024 documented the facility maintains an on-going pest control program to ensure that the building is kept free of insects and rodents. During a kitchen observation on 1/8/25 at 11:37 AM, with the Food Service Director, one live roach was crawling on the wall and one dead roach was found on the floor next to the kitchen tray line. During an interview on 1/8/25 at 11:39 AM Food Service Director stated that they could recognize a roach on the floor. They stated that the facility had bi-weekly pest control treatments. Review of the Pest Management Service Inspection Reports from 10/13/24 to 12/26/24 documented on 12/12/24 unable to service kitchen, kitchen was closed and locked, on 12/26/24 service observed…
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 before2025-01-14 · 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
Based on interviews and record review during the Recertification and abbreviated (NY00339429) surveys from 1/6-1/14/2025, the facility did not ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 30 residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident #107). Specifically, Resident #107 did not receive their eye drops as ordered by the physician after and prior to their cataract surgeries. Findings include: Resident #107 had diagnoses including Dry Eye Syndrome, Edema (swelling) of unspecified eye, and Diabetic Cataracts. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (assessment tool) dated 10/25/24 documented the resident had intact cognition, moderately impaired vision, and no behaviors. A nursing note dated 4/1/24 at 1:13 PM, documented the resident would have cataract surgery on 4/10/24 on the right eye. Post operative orders included prednisolone drops 4 times a day for 4 weeks, then 3 times a day for 1 week, then 2 times a day for 1 week, then 1 time a day for 1 week. The first follow-up appointment was scheduled for 4/11/24. 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 · D2024-04-25 · 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 an abbreviated survey (NY00339416), the facility did not ensure that for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed, all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment are reported immediately but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or serious bodily injury, or no later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse or do not result in serious bodily injury, to the Administrator of the facility and to other officials including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction. Specifically, on 3/28/2024, the Director of Nursing and the Administrator were informed of an alleged abuse incidence that occurred between Resident #1 and the facility Podiatrist. There was no documented evidence that the incident was reported to the New York State Department of Health. Findings include: Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-25 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 an abbreviated survey (NY00339416), the facility did not ensure that an allegation of abuse was thoroughly investigated for 1 (Resident #1) out of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, on 3/28/2024 the Director of Nursing and the Administrator were informed of an alleged abuse incidence that occurred between Resident #1 and the facility Podiatrist. There was no documented evidence that an accident/incident report was completed, there was no documented skin assessment from the Registered Nurse, there was documented interviews of other residents seen by the Podiatrist on the day of the incident, and the complainant was not interviewed until the next day. Findings include: Review of the Accident/Incidents reporting policy and procedure dated 6/12/08 documented that the supervisor must be notified, and the licensed nurse complete the report documenting the facts. The licensed nurse will document in the nurses notes the facts and the sequence of events as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-25 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 an abbreviated survey (NY00339416), the facility did not ensure in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that a resident's medical records was accurately completed and contained a record of the assessment performed for 1(Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed. Specifically, on 3/28/2024, Resident #1 had an incident of alleged abuse during a podiatry toenail trimming consult overheard by staff (the Wound Doctor and the Registered Nurse Wound Care Nurse-Staff #4 and the Certified Nurse Aide-Staff #1). There was no documented assessment in the electronic medical record of Resident #1. Findings include: Review of the Accident/Incidents reporting policy and procedure dated 6/12/08 documented that the supervisor must be notified, and the licensed nurse complete the report documenting the facts. The licensed nurse will document in the nurses notes the facts and the sequence of events as they occurred. Resident #1 was admitted 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 · Ecited before2023-09-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey, it could not be ensured that the facility provided pharmaceutical services to assure accurate acquiring, receiving and administration of medications to meet the needs of each resident. Specifically, 1. expired and undated and/or discontinued medications were found on 2 of 3 medication carts and in 1 of 1 medication rooms 2. 1 of 3 medication carts were not kept locked or under direct observation of authorized staff in an area where residents could access them and 3. A blister pack of medications for Resident #81 was left on the medication cart unattended in the hallway on the A unit. The findings are: 1. During an observation of the 2nd floor medication room on [DATE] at 11:02 AM an opened bottle of Vancomycin had a pharmacy date [DATE] and a pharmacy label indicating it had been prescribed for Resident #41, and dosage/instructions 50 mg/ml, 2.5 ml (125 mg) by mouth 6x daily for 3 days. There was no opened date on 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 · Dcited before2023-09-25 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview and record review during the Recertification and Extended surveys from 09/13/2023 through 09/25/2023, the facility did not ensure each resident had the right to a dignified dining experience for 3 of 11 residents (Residents # 146, # 88, and # 89 ) Specifically, 1. Resident # 146 was served their meal 15 minutes after their tablemate's had received their meals, 2. Residents #88 and #89 were referred to as 'feeders' by the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) in the 3rd floor dining room in the presence of residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #146 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to Atrial Fibrillation, Coronary Artery Disease, and Malnutrition. The 8/27/2023 admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented Resident #146 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7/10 (severely impaired cognition), received supervision with eating, and had no functional limitation in range of motion. The 6/28/2023 activities of daily living (ADL) care plan interventions included supervision with set up help only. During…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-25 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview conducted during a recertification survey the facility did not ensure a thorough and complete investigation was conducted for 1 of 6 residents (Residents #129) reviewed for accidents. Specifically an 8/26/2023 and 9/3/2023 xray reports revealed Resident # 129 had a healing humeral neck fracture and the facility did not ensure that an investigation into the fracture was completed to determine root cause. Findings include: The facility Accident-Occurrence Investigation policy and procedure with a revision date of 12/2022 documented the RN/Clinical Care Manager initiates occurrence investigation report, obtains statements from all staff, residents, visitors present at the time of the accident by the end of the shift, obtains statements until the determination can be made as to the time of the accident. Notifies the regulatroy agency regarding injuries of unknown origin Resident #129 was admitted with diagnoses including but not limited to Arthritis, Non Alzheimer Dementia, and Malnutrition. The 6/24/2023 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) 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 · Dcited before2023-09-25 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
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 (9/13/2023-9/25/2023), the facility did not ensure it developed a discharge summary for 2 of 3 (Resident #156, #157) residents reviewed for discharge. Specifically, there was no evidence that discharge summaries which included a recapitulation of the residents' stay detailing the resident's clinical status, course of treatment, reconciliation of the residents' post discharge medications and post discharge needs, were completed to ensure a safe and effective transition of care. The findings are: Resident #156 was admitted with diagnoses including Hypertension, Paranoid Schizophrenia, and Cellulitis. The 7/5/2023 Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented the resident was cognitively impaired, had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0/15 and required extensive assist with transferring, bed mobility, toileting and eating. Review of Resident #156's record revealed the resident was discharged [DATE] but there was no discharge…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-25 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews conducted during recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY 00323895) from 09/13/2023 through 09/25/2023 it was determined the facility did not ensure that the residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice in order to meet the resident's physical, mental and psychosocial needs for one (Resident #129) of six residents reviewed for accidents, one (Resident #150) reviewed for medication error and/or storage, and one (Resident #119) of two residents reviewed for positioning and mobility. Specifically, 1. the facility did not ensure timely orthopedic follow-up for Resident # 129 after xray reports revealed a healing right humeral neck fracture and as per physiatrist recommendation, 2. Resident #150 was administered discontinued Lorazepam without a physician order, and 3. Resident #119 was not referred for a rehabilitation screen for wheelchair positioning despite multiple observations of their legs hanging off the side of their wheelchair footrest. Findings include 1. Resident # 129 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 · D2023-09-25 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 9/13/2023-9/25/2023, the facility did not ensure a resident who displayed or was diagnosed with a mental disorder received appropriate treatment and services to correct the assessed problem or to attain the highest practicable mental and psychological well-being for 1 of 7 residents (R) #9. Specifically, Resident #9 exhibited periods of worsening irritability and agitation, and had a physician order for a psychological evaluation that was not completed timely. Findings include: Resident # 9 was admitted to the facility with the following diagnoses Major Depressive Disorder Recurrent Mild, Anxiety Disorder, and Schizophrenia Unspecified. The 12/14/2022 Psychotropic Drug Use Care Plan documented the resident was noted to have the following diagnoses and corresponding medications: Schizophrenia: Quetiapine 100 mg tablet - give 1 tablet (100 mg) by oral route 2 times per day, Anxiety state: Buspirone 15 mg tablet 1 tablet by mouth 3 times a day, Depression: sertraline 100 mg tablet - give 1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-25 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, and interview conducted during the recertification survey and abbreviated survey (NY00323895) the facility did not ensure that each resident (Resident #150) reviewed for medication error and/or storage had a drug regime that was free of unnecessary medications. Specifically the issue involved the administration of and lack of a documented indication for the continued use of an as needed (PRN) antipsychotic medication without a physician order. Findings include Resident # 150 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to Hypertension, Seizure Disorder, and Malnutrition. The 8/12/2023 admission orders documented Lorazepam 0.5 mg 1 tab orally every 4 hours as needed (PRN) x 14 days. The 8/12/2023 psychotropic drug use interventions documented assess need for psychotropic medication, obtain psychiatry consult follow up as necessary and establish an appropriate medication use. The 8/15/2023 behavior symptoms care plan documented refer for psychiatry consult, notify and report changes in behavioral changes to the Medical Doctor (MD). 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 · D2023-09-25 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey completed on 9/25/2023 the facility did not ensure for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for food, (Resident # 77) received menu items and preferences listed on the meal tray tickets. Specifically, the preference to receive their meal tray early was not honored. Additionally, food and drink items listed on the meal tray ticket for Resident # 77 were not provided according to the resident's personal preference. The findings are: The resident was admitted with diagnoses including but not limited to Neuropathy, Osteoarthritis, and Chronic Urinary Retention. The 7/3/2023 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented Resident #77 was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance for eating and was on a therapeutic diet. The 2/6/2023 Nutrition Care Plan documented Resident #77 preferred their tray early, and received prune juice and milk shakes three times a day with meals During observation on 09/13/2023 at 1:20 PM the meal tray ticket documented no rice, and serve first, the resident's tray had rice…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-25 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — isolatedConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review Recertification and Extended surveys from 09/13/2023 through 09/25/2023, the facility did not ensure that the facility wide assessment was updated annually to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. The findings are: The Facility Assessment reviewed covered the period from 7/5/2021-7/5/2022. and revealed the last date the assessment was updated was 07/05/2021. The Facility Assessment reviewed covered the period from 7/5/2021-7/5/2022. During an interview with the Supervising Administrator on 09/25/2023 at 11:00 AM they stated that the Administrator was responsible for making sure the Facility Assessment was updated annually because it is an important tool which assesses the needs of the facility to care for the residents. The Supervising Administrator did not know why the Facility Assessment had not been updated in over a year. 415.26
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-25 · tag F0847 — isolatedInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
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 Extended survey from 09/13/2023 through 09/25/2023, the facility did not ensure the they explicitly granted the resident or the residents representative the right to rescind the arbitration agreement within 30 calendar days of signing it for 3 (Resident #1, #211, and #212) of 3 sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #1, #211, and #212's Binding Arbitration Agreements were reviewed, and there was no documented evidence the agreements gave the resident and/or representative the right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing the agreement. The findings are: The Facility admission Agreement with revision date 7/2018 for Residents #1, #211 and #212 in Arbitration Agreement. There was no documented evidence noting the resident and/or their representative were given an option to rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing the agreement. During an interview with the Director of Admissions 09/19/2023 at 02:05 PM, they stated Arbitration Agreements are optional, and they were responsible…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey, it was determined that for one resident (# 408) of two reviewed for urinary catheters, the facility did not ensure staff maintained and complied with infection control interventions to prevent the transmission and development of infection and disease. Specifically, the foley catheter tubing and foley catheter drainage bag for Resident #408 were observed touching the floor. The findings are: Review of the facility's policy, Urinary Catheter Care, effective 9/2019, and last reviewed 7/6/2023 documented its purpose was to prevent urinary tract infections and directed that staff review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident, and that the catheter tubing and drainage bag are to be kept off the floor. Resident #408 was admitted with diagnoses including but not limited to Alzheimer's disease, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, and Neurogenic bladder. The admission nursing assessment dated [DATE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-25 · tag F0882 — isolatedDesignate a qualified infection preventionist to be responsible for the infection prevent and control program in the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification and Extended surveys from 09/13/2023 through 09/25/2023, the facility did not ensure that the Infection Preventionist (IP) completed specialized training in infection prevention and control prior to assuming the role. Specifically, the facility's designated IP, did not have documented evidence of having completed specialized training in infection prevention and control prior to 09/22/2023. The findings are: During the Entrance Conference on 9/13/2023 at 09:48 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) identified the Infection Preventionist (IP). On 09/14/2023 at 02:00 PM, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Infection Preventionist Certificate was not provided on request. The Infection Preventionist's job offer letter documented they started work on 12/6/2022 and their job title was documented as Infection Control and was signed by the IP and the previous Administrator. The 12/2022 'Infection Control Nurse: job description' documented that the qualifications/specialized training of the infection preventionist are to have…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-01-14 · tag F0640 — patternEncode 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 reviews and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 1/6/25 to 1/14/25, the facility did not ensure that all completed resident assessments were submitted and transmitted into the Quality Improvement Evaluation Assessment Submission and Processing in a timely manner. Specifically, 11 (Resident #43, Resident #51, Resident #88, Resident #90, Resident #104, Resident #108, Resident #120, Resident #124, Resident #129 and Resident# 131) of 30 Minimum Data Set assessments submissions, reviewed were not submitted to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services within 14 days of completion. The findings are: The facility's policy and procedure titled Minimum Data Set 3.0 Submission revised 1/2024 documented that each department was expected to complete their assigned responsibilities no later than 14 days from Assessment Reference date set by the facility Minimum Data Set Coordinator or designee for compliance with regulatory guidelines. Review of the submissions revealed: - Resident #51's quarterly Minimum Data Set 3.0, with assessment reference date of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$39,130 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $39,130 — penalty dated 2023-09-25
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRAUNSTEIN, EDWARD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 28% | since 01/01/2018 |
| DIAMOND, JESSICA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 5% | since 11/25/2016 |
| GELLIS, CHERYL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 5% | since 11/25/2016 |
| ZYSKIND, ISRAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2023 |
| EINHORN, BENJAMIN | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| BRAUNSTEIN, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| HIRSCH, DANIEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/25/2016 |
| BELLER, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/16/2023 |
| SILBERBERG, CHAIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 335365. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-14, 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.