Elizabeth Seton Children's Center
300 Corporate Blvd South, Yonkers, NY 10701 · Non profit - Corporation · 169 certified beds · (914) 294-6300 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (22% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.0% | 14.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.0% | 5.8% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 1.3% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 19.5% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 7.3% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.1% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.7% | 12.5% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 74.6% | 13.2% | 18.9% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.2% | 6.5% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 1.2% | 19.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 1.3% | 13.7% | 17.1% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.56 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 169 beds and averages 167.6 residents a day — about 99% occupied, or roughly 1 bed 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 11.06 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 6.17 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.58 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 10.32 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 11.35 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 6.37 to 5.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · 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 and abbreviated surveys (NY00381153/462978) from 7/31/25 to 8/7/25, the facility did not ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for one of two residents (Resident #119) reviewed for accidents. Specifically, staff did not perform a time out to double check if all strap eyelets were secured on the mechanical lift hooks prior to raising the lift up and Resident #119 slid out of the sling and dropped to the floor.Findings include:Resident #119 had diagnoses including cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, dependence on respirator, tracheostomy, and gastrostomy. The 12/31/20 Falls Care Plan documented the resident was at risk for falls related to lack of safety awareness, cognitive impairment, impaired balance, lack of voluntary extremity movements, spastic quadriplegia, and psychoactive drug use. The 2/21/25 Annual Minimum Data Set assessment documented Resident #119 had severely impaired cognition, was rarely/never understood, and was dependent on staff 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 · D2025-08-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interviews during the recertification survey from 7/31/25 to 8/7/25, the facility did not ensure that staff maintained an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #72) reviewed for infection control. Specifically, Resident #72 was on contact precautions until 8/1/25 and a housekeeper was observed doing a terminal cleaning of Resident #72's room and did not use the proper personal protective equipment while removing a privacy/cubicle curtain. Findings include:The Terminal Room Cleaning Policy dated 12/2012 documented when a room comes off isolation or when a resident is discharged , terminal cleaning will occur. The purpose is to provide residents, staff, and visitors with a sanitary and comfortable environment and endeavor to prevent the development and transmission of infection. It further documented in the procedures to make sure to wear personal…
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 before2025-03-17 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews and interviews completed during an abbreviated survey (NY00349237), the facility did not ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with their comprehensive person-centered care plan. Specifically Resident #1 had a care plan in place, that documented that they required 2 staff members to provide all care. On 7/23/2024 a single Certified Nurse Aide provided care singlehandedly to Resident #1. The finding is: The facility policy titled Lifting and transferring a Child revised on 11/2024 documents that all lifting, and transfers are conducted by trained direct care staff and or clinical staff and or trained family members. It further documened that once the transfer designation is established in the care plan it must be followed at all times within the facility by all direct caregivers. Resident #1 originally admitted on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, spastic cerebral palsy with quadriparesis, epilepsy, disorder…
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 before2024-07-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00345276) on 6/20/24, the facility did not ensure residents rights to be free from physical for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, on 6/12/24, two facility staff (Certified Nurse Aide #1 and Speech Therapist #2) witnessed an alleged staff to resident abuse involving Registered Nurse #7 and Resident #1. Registered Nurse #7 was witnessed screaming 25year olds don't behave this way-cut it out and holding Resident #1's hands down in their lap with closed hands over forearms. In an interview with Certified Nurse Aide #1 they stated they heard raised voices and saw Registered Nurse #7 loudly saying stop, are you a baby? Both witnesses did not report the incident on 6/12/24. The Speech Therapist #2 reported the incident to the administration on 6/13/24. Video surveillance revealed Registered Nurse #7 restraining Resident #1 by closing their hands on Resident #1 forearms and saw Registered Nurse #7 pointing a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-05 · 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 during an abbreviated survey (NY00345276), the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately, but not later than two hours to the New York State Department of Health, and the results of the 5-day investigation to the New York State Department of Health in accordance with state law within 5 working days of the incident. This was identified for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, on 6/12/24, two facility staff (Certified Nurse Aide #1 and Speech Therapist) witnessed an alleged staff to resident abuse involving Registered Nurse #7 and Resident #1, which was not reported to the facility administration until 6/13/24. Certified Nurse Aide #1 did not report the incident on 6/12/24. The Speech Therapist reported the incident to the administration on 6/13/24. The result of the facility 5-day investigation was not submitted to New York State Department of Health until 6/21/24. Finding include: The facility…
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 before2023-11-16 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00327790), the facility did not ensure that 1 of 21 sampled residents (Resident #1) was free from physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. Specifically, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA#3) witnessed CNA#1 slap Resident #1 on the face on 11/06/2023 while providing care and witnessed CNA#1 being rough in handling some of the residents in their unit. In addition, CNA#2 reported they witnessed CNA#1 being rough in handling some of the residents on their unit. The findings are: The Facility Policy on the Prohibition and Prevention of Resident Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment and Misappropriation of Resident Property last revised on 06/2023 documented that it is the facility policy to honor all resident rights and treat each resident with respect and compassion in full recognition of the person's dignity and individuality. Resident #1 had diagnoses that included Lennox Gastaut Syndrome (A severe condition characterized by repeated seizures/epilepsy), Spastic Cerebral Palsy (A developmental disorder caused by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews conducted during an abbreviated survey (NY00327790), the facility did not ensure an alleged violation involving abuse was reported to the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) within 2 hours of occurrence. This was evident for 1 out of 21 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and mistreatment. Specifically, the facility reported a staff-to-resident abuse that occurred on 11/06/2023 to the NYSDOH on 11/09/2023. The findings are: The Facility Policy on Reporting and Investigation of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment, Misappropriation of Resident Property and Other Incidents effective 11/2022, revised on 06/2023 documented that all staff reports all reportable incidents immediately to the manager/supervisor or to the [NAME] President of Operations/Administrator. The facility immediately conducts a preliminary investigation and, if warranted, reports to the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH), other agencies and law enforcement as specified in law and regulation within required timeframes. Resident #1 had 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 before2023-08-04 · 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
Based upon observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey on 7/31/2023 - 8/4/2023, the facility did not ensure that foods were stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Specifically, 1. unwrapped, uncooked ground beef was stored in a walk-in refrigerator, 2. an unsecured chest freezer located in a hallway near the kitchen contained foods intended for consumption by residents which were not labeled with expiration dates or use by dates, and 3. A dietary staff member was observed checking food temperatures prior to meal service and did not properly sanitize the thermometer. The findings are: During the initial and follow up tours of the kitchen on 7/31/2023 at 9:33 AM and on 8/2/2023 at 10:55 am the following were observed: 1. Observation on 7/31/23 at 9:57 AM revealed approximately one pound of ground beef stored in a walk in refrigerator. The ground beef was not adequately wrapped, and one side of the beef was open to the air and to contamination. In an interview conducted at…
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 · D2023-08-04 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey on 7/31/2023 - 8/4/2023, the facility did not ensure that the garbage storage area was maintained in a sanitary condition. Specifically, the ground under the loading dock located near the door to the trash compactor was heavily littered with solid debris including two (2) treatment items labeled with personal health information. The findings are: An Environmental Services (ES) policy and procedure dated 12/2008 and titled Non-Hazardous Waste Removal documented the policy is To remove all trash from the facility in a safe and sanitary condition., and the purpose is To provide residents, staff, and visitors with a sanitary and comfortable environment and endeavor to prevent the development and transmission of infection. Procedures included that assigned housekeeping staff collect trash per schedule removing and sealing the clear plastic liners from each wastebasket, each sealed plastic liner is placed in a large trash bin on wheels, the trash is wheeled to/emptied into a dumpster at least…
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 before2023-08-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and review of video evidence during the recertification survey and abbreviated survey (NY00296893) from 7/31/2023 to 8/4/2023, it could not be ensured that the facility provided the necessary care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice and the resident's patient centered comprehensive care plan. This was evident for 2 (Resident #64 and #319) of 5 residents reviewed for injury of unknown origin. Specifically, 1. video evidence revealed that on the evening of 6/1/2022 staff did not follow facility transfer protocol resulting in Resident #64 being transferred improperly and 2. a 6/18/2022 video revealed Resident #319 entering Resident #64's room and moving about the room freely, without indication of supervision or redirection for a time frame greater than one hour. The findings are: 1. Resident #64 was admitted with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, congenital malformations of corpus callosum, disorders of bone density and structure, and dislocation of left…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-09-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that food brought in from the outside was handled according to professional standards of practice. Specifically, food items found in the refrigerators on resident units were either outdated or not labeled and dated. This was evident on 2 of 8 resident units ([NAME] Park and [NAME] Park). The findings are: Leftovers and Food Safety Often when we cook at home or eat in a restaurant, we have leftovers. To ensure that leftovers are safe to eat, make sure the food is cooked to a safe temperature and refrigerate the leftovers promptly. Not cooking food to a safe temperature and leaving food out at an unsafe temperature are the two main causes of foodborne illness. Safe handling of leftovers is very important in reducing foodborne illness. Follow the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service's recommendations for handling leftovers safely. Store Leftovers Safely Leftovers can be kept in 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.
- No harm found · B2019-09-23 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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, the facility did not ensure that the Ombudsman was being notified of resident transfers. This was evident for 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #19 and #156). The findings are: 1. A Nursing Progress Note dated 7/21/19 indicated Resident #19 was sent to the hospital with an elevated heart rate and fever. The Nursing Progress Note dated 7/25/19 indicated the resident returned to the facility with a diagnosis of Urosepsis. 2. A Nursing Progress Note dated 7/19/19 indicated Resident #156 was vomiting coffee ground material and was transferred to the hospital. The Nursing Progress Note dated 8/28/19 indicated the resident returned to the facility following hospitalization where a G/J Tube (Gastrostomy/Jejunostomy - required for feeding and administration of medications) was placed. There was no documented evidence in the medical records of both residents that the Ombudsman was notified of either transfer. In an interview with the Director of Social Work on 9/19/19 at 10:26 AM, regarding…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in NY
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 33A246. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-07, 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.