GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Glen Island Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall quality of care. It ranks #510 out of 594 facilities in New York, placing it in the bottom half statewide, and #37 out of 42 in Westchester County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. The facility is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 10 in 2018 to 14 in 2024. While staffing is a relative strength with a turnover rate of 39%, which is below the state average, the facility still has concerning metrics, including $36,299 in fines, which is higher than 84% of New York facilities. Specific incidents include several residents developing serious pressure ulcers due to a lack of proper care and failure to notify family members about significant changes in their loved ones' conditions, demonstrating both care deficiencies and communication issues.
- Trust Score
- F
- In New York
- #510/594
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $36,299 in fines. Higher than 66% of New York facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 48 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New York. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (39%)
9 points below New York average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below New York average (3.0)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near New York avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
7 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(H)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during an abbreviated survey and partial extended survey (NY00349917), the facility did not...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00349917, NY00347905), the facility did not ensure the com...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated survey (NY00349917, NY00347905), the facility did not ensure a performance review was completed for every nurse aide at least once every 12 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during an abbreviated and partial extended survey (NY00349917, NY0034705), the facility di...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during an abbreviated survey (NY00349917, NY00347905) and a partial extended survey the fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during an abbreviated survey (NY00347905) the facility did not ensure that a resident with ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview during a partial extended survey (NY00349917, NY00347905), the facility did not provide suf...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/10/24-6/14/24, the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/10/2024 to 6/14/2024, th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/10/24 to 6/14/24, the fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review conducted during the recertification and abbreviated surveys (NY00330768) from 6/10/24 to 6/14/24, the facility did not ensure that each resident received treatmen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interviews during the recertification survey from 6/10/24 to 6/14/24, the facility...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/10/24-6/14/24, the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey from 6/10/24-6/14/24, the facility did not provid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2018
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #114 has diagnoses and conditions including Dementia, Psychotic Disorder, and Parkinson's disease.
On 8/23/18, the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not develop person-centered care plans to address the care of 1 of 6 residents (#522) r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure for 1 of 1 resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that facility staff fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that the facility staff followed proper hand hygiene to prevent the spread of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #16 has diagnoses including Dementia with behavioral disturbance, Paranoid Schizophrenia, and Major Depressive Disor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, record reviews and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that its medication error rate exceeded 5% or greater. This was evident for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure proper storage, preparation, distribution and service of food in accordance with professiona...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interviews conducted during a recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that its facility assessment included staffing levels necessary to competently provide and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. Resident # 423 has diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson Disease, and Schizophrenia.
Review of the October and the November 2018 MARs revealed multiple omitted signatures to indicate ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 39% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 24 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $36,299 in fines. Higher than 94% of New York facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (30/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within New York, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Staffed?
CMS rates GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION during 2018 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 23 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation?
GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 183 certified beds and approximately 178 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in NEW ROCHELLE, New York.
How Does Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New York. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Stick Around?
GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION has a staff turnover rate of 39%, which is about average for New York nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation Ever Fined?
GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION has been fined $36,299 across 1 penalty action. The New York average is $33,442. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation on Any Federal Watch List?
GLEN ISLAND CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.