LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME

100 PATRIOTS ROAD, STONYBROOK, NY 11790 (631) 444-8500
Government - State 350 Beds STATE OF NEW YORK COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#60 of 594 in NY
Last Inspection: March 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Long Island State Veterans Home has received a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #60 out of 594 facilities in New York, placing it in the top half overall, and #5 out of 41 in Suffolk County, meaning there are only a few local options better than this facility. However, the trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 1 in 2023 to 2 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, boasting a 5-star rating with a turnover rate of 33%, which is lower than the state average, and the facility also has more registered nurse coverage than 86% of New York facilities. On the downside, there have been significant incidents reported, including a serious case where one resident was harmed due to inadequate supervision after being hospitalized, leading to physical injuries. Additionally, there were concerns regarding the lack of a comprehensive care plan for residents, such as not following proper procedures for medication administration, which could lead to health risks. While the facility has no fines on record and performs excellently in overall and health inspection ratings, families should weigh these strengths against the noted weaknesses before making a decision.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In New York
#60/594
Top 10%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
33% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 68 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of New York nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (33%)

    15 points below New York average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 33%

13pts below New York avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: STATE OF NEW YORK COMPTROLLER'S OFF

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Mar 2025 2 deficiencies
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 observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/5/2025 and completed on 3/11/2025, the facility did not ensure it implemented a comprehensive perso...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/5/2025 and completed on 3/11/2025, the facility did not ensure it implemented a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. This was identified for one (Resident #260) of two residents observed for Medication Administration. Specifically, on 3/6/2025, during the medication pass observation for Resident #260, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 did not rinse the resident's mouth after administering a Symbicort inhaler (a medication that helps reduce inflammation and keep airways open; the inhaler contains a steroid medication that increases the risk of oral fungal infection) as per the physician's orders. The finding is: The facility's policy titled Medication Administration, last revised 2/2023 documented that it is the responsibility of each licensed nurse to be aware of drug classifications, actions/interactions, standard dosages, standards of administration, side effects, and the reason the drug is being given to the resident. Licensed nurses are expected to demonstrate competency in medication administration. Steroidal inhalation medications require the resident's mouth to be completely rinsed after administration. Resident #260 was admitted with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Hypertension, and Heart Failure. The 1/17/2025 Significant Change Minimum Data Set assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. A Physician's order initiated on 1/8/2025 and renewed on 3/3/2025 documented Symbicort 160-4.5 microgram inhaler (Budesonide/Formoterol Fumarate) two inhalations every 12 hours (9:00 AM and 9:00 PM); Rinse Mouth After Use! Diagnosis: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. During the medication administration observation on 3/6/2025 at 8:18 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 administered two inhalations of the Symbicort inhaler to Resident #260 and did not rinse the resident's mouth after the Symbicort inhalation treatment. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 8:55 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated they were nervous, which is why they missed rinsing the resident's mouth after the Symbicort treatment. Licensed Practical Nurse #1 stated Symbicort is a steroid and can cause oral thrush (fungal infection in the mouth). During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 9:17 AM, Registered Nurse Educator #1 stated Symbicort is a steroid medication and can cause oral thrush. The resident's mouth should be rinsed with water after the inhalation administration. The resident should spit the water out after the rinse. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 9:25 AM, the Director of Nursing Services stated the nurse should have rinsed the resident's mouth after administering the Symbicort inhaler, It says so in the physician's order. 10 NYCRR 415.11(c)(1)
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/5/2025 and completed on 3/11/2025, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 3/5/2025 and completed on 3/11/2025, the facility did not ensure that all completed Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were electronically transmitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within 14 days of the resident assessment completion. This was identified for one (Resident #25) of one resident reviewed for the Resident Assessment Task. Specifically, Resident #25's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was not electronically submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) until 35 days after the completion of the assessment. The finding is: The facility's policy and procedure titled MDS 3.0 Completion last revised on 12/2022, documented the Minimum Data Set Coordinator submits the Minimum Data Set to both the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) database. The policy did not include the timeframe for the completion and transmission of the Minimum Data Set assessments. Resident #25 was admitted with diagnoses including Atrial Fibrillation (an irregular, often rapid heart rate), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Heart Failure. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #25 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, which indicated that Resident #25 had moderate cognitive impairment. The Minimum Data Set was completed on 1/16/2025. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Nursing Home Validation Report revealed the following: Resident #25's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with the reference date of 1/10/2025 was completed on 1/16/2025 and was submitted to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on 3/6/2025, 35 days late. During an interview on 3/6/2025 at 1:32 PM, the Minimum Data Set Director stated the facility used a software system that tracked the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment schedules. The Minimum Data Set Assessors entered the Minimum Data Set (MDS) start date and completion date in the system. The software system generated a list of the resident assessments due for transmission; however, Resident #25's name did not appear on the list and they did not know why. The Minimum Data Set Director stated that Resident #25's Minimum Data Set was submitted today, 3/6/2025. During an interview on 3/7/2025 at 12:47 PM, the Minimum Data Set Assistant Director stated they are responsible for generating the Minimum Data Set assessments transmission due date reports daily. The Minimum Data Set Assistant Director stated they had completed the Significant Change assessment for Resident #25 on 1/16/2025 and did not transmit the assessments upon completion because they relied on the system to generate a report and provide the due dates. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 1:36 PM, the Director of Nursing Services stated all Minimum Data Set assessments should be completed and transmitted timely. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 2:24 PM, the Administrator (Executive Director) stated all Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments should be completed and submitted on time. The Administrator stated they relied on the fact that the software system they use for tracking the assessments is accurate. 10NYCRR 415.11(a)(3)(i)
Sept 2023 1 deficiency
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** 2) Resident #163 was admitted with diagnoses including Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, and Depression. The Annual Mi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) Resident #163 was admitted with diagnoses including Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, and Depression. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 which indicated that the resident had severely impaired cognition. The MDS documented that the resident had minimal hearing difficulty and there was no use of hearing aids or other hearing appliances. A Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) titled At Risk for Impaired Communication Secondary to Hearing Loss, dated 8/22/2023 documented interventions that included hearing aid will be used daily, assistance as needed, check the functioning of hearing aids daily, report any changes in hearing, assess comprehension and understanding. A review of the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assignment record for August 2023 documented the resident used Bilateral Hearing aids from 8/22/2023 to 8/30/2023 as evidenced by staff signature. Resident #163 was observed sitting in their wheelchair in their room on 8/29/2023 at 10:03 AM. Resident #163 was interviewed and appeared to have difficulty hearing and stated, I am hard of hearing. Resident #163 did not have hearing aids or any other hearing amplification device in their ears. Resident #163's primary CNA # 2 was interviewed on 8/30/2023 at 2:00 PM and stated that Resident #163 did not utilize hearing aids. CNA # 2 reported that they (CNA #2) have never seen Resident #163 wearing hearing aids. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 8/30/2023 at 2:10 PM. LPN # 1 stated that Resident #163 does not have hearing aids. LPN # 1 stated that they (LPN #1) have never seen Resident #163 wearing hearing aids. Registered Nurse (RN) #3, who was the Unit Manager, was interviewed on 8/30/2023 at 2:15 PM. RN #3 stated that Resident #163 had hearing aids; however, had a behavior of removing the hearing aids. RN #3 could not recall when the resident last used the hearing aids. RN #3 searched Resident #163's room, including the night table, and stated that they could not find the resident's hearing aids. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 8/30/2023 at 3:42 PM and stated Resident #163's family member took the hearing aids home years ago because the Audiologist could not put a clip on the hearing aids. The DNS stated the resident uses a hearing amplification device instead. The DNS stated the CCP should have indicated the use of the hearing amplification device instead of the hearing aids. The DNS stated that the staff should have known that the resident uses a hearing amplification device. The CCP for At Risk for Impaired Communication was updated on 8/30/2023 to include an intervention for Hearing Aid: Sound Pocket Talker with Headphones. Resident #163 was observed sleeping in bed on 8/31/2023 at 2:10 PM. CNA #1 was present in the resident's room and stated that the resident had the amplifier in their (Resident #163) drawer today, but the resident refused to use it today. CNA #1 opened the drawer, and the amplification device was observed by the surveyor. RN #3 was re-interviewed on 8/31/2023 at 2:15 PM and stated that the Communication CCP should have reflected that Resident #163 utilized a hearing amplifier as the resident was Hard of Hearing. 10 NYCRR 415.11(c)(2)(i-iii) Based on record review and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 8/28/2023 and completed on 9/1/2023 facility did not ensure each resident's Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was reviewed and revised to reflect the current needs of the resident. This was identified for one (Resident #288) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and one (Resident #163) of two residents reviewed for vision/hearing. Specifically, 1) Resident #288's behavioral and activities care plans were not updated to reflect behaviors the resident exhibited and precautionary measures to be taken when the resident attended activity programs; and 2) Resident #163's communication care plan was not updated to reflect the current status of the resident's use of the hearing aid or a hearing amplifier device. The findings are: The facility's policy, titled Comprehensive Care Planning, last reviewed July 2021, documented all residents at the facility will have a comprehensive care plan that addresses each of their needs. The comprehensive resident-centered care plan will be implemented in accordance with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidelines. The comprehensive resident-centered care plan will include the onset date of the particular area; a problem statement that will describe the area that needs to be addressed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT); and any applicable interventions or approaches that would assist the resident in reaching the measurable goals. 1) Resident #288 was admitted with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus, Psychotic Disorder, and Depression. The 7/22/2023 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. There were no behavioral symptoms documented in the MDS assessment. A progress note, written by Resident #288's primary care physician, dated 6/22/2023 documented the Resident was reported with inappropriate sexual behavior with female staff and a family member of another resident. The resident appeared to be disinhibited. The resident was on Risperidone (an antipsychotic medication) on admission, which was tapered off. The resident's behavior has gotten worse gradually since then. Will start low-dose Risperidone at bedtime and monitor. Spoke with the resident's family member. The family member reported that the resident had inappropriate sexual behavior for a long time including inappropriate sexual behaviors toward children. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 8/31/2023 at 1:30 PM. The DNS read the 6/22/2023 primary care physician's note and stated they (DNS) were familiar with the note and that Resident #288 was not allowed to attend intergenerational gatherings. The DNS stated, I hope the care plan was updated. A review of the comprehensive care plan titled Leisure Decline, initiated on 5/30/2023 was revised on 6/27/2023 to include an intervention: During instances of inappropriate behavior, recreation staff will redirect the resident and/or remove from group programming. The CCP was updated on 8/31/2023 at 2:10 PM and the following interventions were added by the Recreation Director: While intergenerational programs are implemented on units or the multipurpose room, recreation staff will provide alternate opportunities to pursue leisure interest of other programs of interest available. In addition, the Behavior CCP, initiated on 5/20/2023, was updated by the DNS on 9/1/2023 to include an intervention to redirect the resident in the event that the resident is inappropriate with others. Resident #288's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 9/1/2023 at 8:50 AM. CNA #1 stated Resident #288 self-propels in their wheelchair and has access to programs on different units. CNA #1 stated the resident attends activity programs and is not restricted from activity programs. CNA #1 stated when the resident wants to go to an activity, the recreation staff allows the resident to attend the activity programs. Registered Nurse (RN) #1, who was the charge nurse, was interviewed on 9/1/2023 at 8:57 AM. RN #1 stated Resident #288 self-propels and goes to different units and programs on their own. RN #1 stated Resident #288 likes to go to activities, can go to any program, and has no restrictions. Recreation Director #1 was interviewed on 9/1/2023 at 9:02 AM. Recreation Director #1 stated the interdisciplinary team discussed Resident #288 yesterday (8/31/2023). Recreation Director #1 stated the facility has not had intergeneration groups since COVID-19, but we are slowly getting back to pre-COVID-19 activities. Recreation Director #1 stated they do not want to restrict the resident and want to make sure the resident has something to do if there is an intergenerational event. Recreation Director #1 stated there are weekly behavior meetings and huddles with the IDT. The IDT will discuss which residents have to be closely monitored, and what behaviors to look out for, then the CNAs are made aware. The DNS was re-interviewed on 9/01/2023 at 9:49 AM. The DNS stated a Recreation Therapist, who is no longer employed, was supposed to update the Leisure Decline care plan regarding the intergenerational meeting restriction, but it was not done. Recreation Director #1 updated the CCP yesterday (8/31/2023).
Jul 2021 7 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (Complaint # NY 00263584) com...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (Complaint # NY 00263584) completed on 7/1/2021, the facility failed to ensure resident rights to be free from abuse for two of two residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #23 and Resident #157). Specifically, Resident #23 who was identified with aggressive behavior, pushed a wandering resident (Resident #157) when Resident #157 grabbed and shook Resident #23's arm. Resident #157 fell to the floor and sustained two lacerations to the back of the head. Subsequently Resident #157 was sent to the hospital with a change in mental status and the two lacerations to the back of the head required five staples. Furthermore, Resident #157 was not adequately supervised upon return from the hospital the next day and entered Resident #23's room when Resident #23 punched Resident #157 in the face causing the resident to sustain a bloody nose with bruising and cuts to the face. This resulted in actual harm to Resident #157 that is not Immediate Jeopardy. The finding is: The Facility Freedom from Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect and Exploitation policy dated 4/1/1991 and revised on 11/2018 documented that abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental anguish or deprivation by an individual of goods or services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Inflictions of abuse can include but are not limited to the following: Physical Abuse includes hitting, slapping, pinching and kicking. 1) Resident #157 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Major Depressive Disorder and Seizure Disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #157's BIMS score was 4, indicating severely impaired cognition. The nurses progress note dated 8/30/2020 documented that at 1:40 PM, Resident #157 was found lying on their back in the doorway to their room, assisted from the floor by staff to the wheelchair. Resident #157 had two lacerations to the scalp; one measuring 1.5 centimeter (cm) in length, the other measuring 1 cm in length. The lacerations were cleaned with normal saline, bacitracin and steri strips were applied and were covered with a clean dressing as ordered. The supervisor, physician and family were notified. Resident #157 had complaints of pain from the laceration on the head and Tylenol was given. Neuro checks for every shift for 24 hours as ordered by physician. The Physician's Orders dated 8/30/2020 documented Bacitracin 500 unit/Gram (gm) ointment to scalp daily. Cleanse lacerations with normal saline and apply steri-strips. The orders on 8/30/2020 also documented Neuro-check every 2 hours for 1 day and to transfer to the hospital for altered mental status. The nurses progress note dated 8/30/2020 at 9:27 PM documented Resident #157 was showing increased signs of lethargy and confusion. Resident #157 was sent out for emergency room at 8:20 PM for further evaluation. The Nurses Progress notes dated 8/31/2020 documented that Resident #157 returned from the hospital at 8:50 AM. Resident #157 was noted with 5 staples to the back of the head. The injury was obtained during a peer to peer incident on 8/30/20. The Physician's progress notes dated 8/31/2020 documented Resident #157 was found on the floor by Resident #157's room with two lacerations to the back of the scalp. Resident #157 was transferred to the emergency room after there was a change in mental status. Resident #157's lacerations were approximated with staples. The plan was to monitor the laceration site and monitor temperature. The Behavior care plan for Resident #157 dated 5/20/2020 documented Resident #157 was at risk for distress, disruption to environment, and injury to self/others due to behavioral symptoms which included cursing at others, hitting, pushing, refusal of care and wandering. The goals included that Resident #157 will be free from harm and will not harm others. The interventions included to redirect Resident #157 when going into peer's rooms and redirect other residents from entering Resident #157's room. The CCP was not updated or revised after the resident's return from the hospital on 8/31/2020. The Victimization care plan for Resident #157 dated 5/20/2020 documented Resident #157 is at risk for victimization related to reacting negatively towards peers when redirected. The goals included that Resident #157 will remain free from victimization as evidenced by absence of peer altercation. The interventions included to observe peer interactions and offer redirection as needed and remove peers for safety if resident does not accept redirection. The CCP was not updated or revised after the resident's return from the hospital. The nurses progress note dated 8/31/2020 documented that after lunch, Resident #157 was found in another resident's room (Resident #23) sitting in a chair with blood on their face. Staff assisted Resident #157 out of the room. Resident #157 had multiple small lacerations to the left side of their face near the ear, left check, under left nostril and the nose was bruised. The altercation took place with the same resident as the incident on the previous day. Resident #157's face was cleaned; ice was applied to the nose with good effect. The physician, supervisor, and social worker were made aware. 2) Resident #23 was admitted to the facility with the diagnosis of Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Psychosis, and Anxiety Disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #23 had a BIMS score of 3, indicating severely impaired cognition. The Behavior care plan for Resident #23 dated 8/18/2020 documented Resident #23 is at risk for distress, disruption to environment, and injury to self/others due to limited insight to safety, territorial behaviors related to Resident #23's room and belongings, pushing, grabbing, pacing, and screaming and cursing at others. The goals included that Resident #23 will be free from harm and will not harm others. Interventions included to redirect peers away from Resident #23, provide a newspaper, offer music and provide familiar caregiver when able. The CCP was not updated/revised after the altercation on 8/30/2020. The Accident and Incident report dated 8/30/2020 documented that at 1:40 PM, CNA #1 saw Resident #23 standing by the entrance of Resident #23's room and observed Resident #157 lying on their back on the floor by Resident #157's room with blood on the floor by Resident #157's head. Resident #23 was standing by the entrance of Resident #23's room, which was adjacent to Resident #157's room. Resident #23 said that Resident #157 grabbed Resident #23's arm and was shaking Resident #23. Resident #23 pushed Resident #157 and Resident #157 fell. Resident #23 repeated and re-enacted the events to make sure that people understood why Resident #23 did what Resident #23 did. A body check revealed 2 lacerations to the top of Resident #157's head measuring 1.5 centimeters (cm) and 1.0 cm. New orders included steri-strips (to the lacerations), bacitracin (topical antibiotic ointment) and a dry clean dressing. Resident # 157 complained of a headache about 1 hour after the incident and was administered Tylenol 650 Milligrams (mg) with good result. Later in the evening, Resident # 157 was noted with increased lethargy and confusion. The resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation of the altered mental status post fall with head injury. The facility summary of findings dated 9/4/2020 (from the 8/30/2020 Accident Incident report) documented that Resident # 157 received 5 staples to his head. The residents' rooms were adjacent to each other and possibly Resident #23's misjudged the location of their room and perceived that Resident #157 was in Resident #23's room. The plan for improvement included a re-evaluation for Resident #157 upon return from the hospital and the care plan was not reviewed and revised. Staff will continue to observe, monitor, and redirect residents while near each other and to anticipate any untold behavior between the two residents. The facility's investigation identified that the incident occurred because both residents had the diagnosis of Dementia; however, the unit is crowded with residents around the nursing station and there was not enough personal space. The facility concluded that there was no reasonable cause to believe any alleged resident abuse, neglect or mistreatment occurred. The Accident and Incident report dated 8/31/2020 documented Resident #157 was sitting in front of the television where a staff member was feeding another resident. The staff member proceeded to place Resident #157 in the hallway across from the dining room to clean up after lunch leaving the hallway unattended. Resident #157 walked past the nurse's station, and no one realized that Resident #157 moved from the seat and probably wandered accidentally in to the peer's room (Resident #23) which was right next to Resident #157's room. Resident (#157) has a history of wandering in other resident rooms. Resident #23 came out of Resident #23's room and asked for someone to get this resident (Resident #157) out of their room. CNA #2 responded, and Resident #157 was found sitting in a chair in Resident #23's room with multiple small lacerations to the left side of the face near the ear, lacerations under the left nostril and a bruised nose. Resident #23 had blood on the right hand. Resident #23 stated that Resident #157 came into Resident #23's room uninvited and when someone wants to fight, you need to hit them first. The facility concluded there was no reasonable cause to believe any alleged resident abuse, neglect or mistreatment occurred. CNA #1 was interviewed on 6/29/2021 at 2:17 PM. CNA #1 stated that on 8/30/2020, CNA #1 was at the nurses station charting and observed Resident #157 wandering in the hallway and they redirected Resident #157 away from Resident #23's room. CNA #1 then continued charting at the nurse's station and then CNA #1 heard a commotion. CNA #1 walked out of the nurse's station to Resident #157's room which was by the station and observed Resident #157 on the floor at Resident #157's doorway, laying on their back with blood on the floor. Resident #23 said Resident #157 was trying to get into Resident #23's room. Resident #23 told CNA #1 that Resident #157 grabbed Resident #23's arm and shook it. Resident #23 then pushed Resident #157 and Resident #157 fell to the floor. CNA #1 stated that Resident #23 can be aggressive and impulsive, so she knows they should be kept separated. CNA #1 stated within moments of the last redirection, Resident #157 still wandered near Resident #23. CNA #1 could not recall the exact time of the events and did not recall if other staff members were around at the time of the incident. CNA #2 was interviewed on 6/29/21 at 2:41 PM. CNA #2 stated that on 8/31/2020, Resident #23 came out to the doorway and asked would you get this person out the room? CNA #2 looked past Resident #23 and saw Resident #157 seated in the room with blood on their face. Resident #23 told CNA #2 that Resident #23 punched Resident #157 on the nose and Resident #23 was observed with blood on their hand. CNA #2 brought Resident #157 out of the room and reported to Charge Nurse #1 what was encountered. CNA #2 stated that CNA #2 generally picks up assignments and monitors everyone on the unit. CNA #2 does not recall if they were assigned to Resident # 157 or Resident #23. CNA #2 stated that Resident #23 has a temper and they know that Resident #157 should be redirected away from Resident #23. Resident #157 had a behavior of habitually returning to Resident #23's room because it used to be Resident #157's room in the past. CNA #2 stated that unless there is a 1:1 assigned to Resident #157, there is no way to do continuous monitoring for Resident #157. CNA #2 was not instructed to increase monitoring for Resident #157 on 8/31/2020. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 6/29/2021 at 3:55 PM. The DNS stated that on 8/30/2020, Resident #157 was on the floor and Resident #23 stated Resident #23 pushed Resident #157 and Resident #157 sustained 2 lacerations on the head. Prior to the event, Resident #157 was seen ambulating on the unit. Resident #157 was sent out to the hospital for an evaluation and received 5 staples to the head. The DNS stated that there were no new preventative measures put in the care plan on 8/30/2020 for Resident #157. On 8/31/20, Resident #157 walked into Resident #23's room. The DNS further stated that according to the New York State and Federal definitions of Abuse, both incidents were abuse. The Charge Registered Nurse (RN) was interviewed on 7/1/21 at 1:59 PM. The Charge RN stated that the two residents did not have any altercations prior to 8/30/2020. The Charge Nurse was on the unit on 8/31/20 when Resident #157 returned from the hospital. The Charge RN stated that the plan of care was to observe Resident #157's peer interactions and to offer redirection prior to 8/30/2020. The plan of care also instructed staff to keep other residents away from Resident #157 when Resident #157 does not accept redirection. The interventions in the plan of care did not specify the frequency of monitoring. The Charge RN stated the basic protocol was one-hour visual checks on Resident #157 and Resident #157's monitoring was not increased when the resident returned from the hospital. The Medical Director was interviewed on 7/1/21 at 2:37 PM. The Medical Director reviewed the accident and incident reports for 8/30/20 and 8/31/20. The Medical Director stated that Resident #157 sustained lacerations to the occipital scalp area with staples in place after the 8/30/2020 altercation. The Medical Director stated that Resident #157 incurred injuries and was harmed by Resident #23. The Medical Director expected Resident #157 to be kept in a visual area to keep them away from other residents. Normally when an abuse case occurs, the team determines the frequency of supervision which can be every (Q)15 minutes, Q 30 minutes or 1:1 supervision. In this case, the baseline was 1-hour checks and the frequency of supervision should have been increased. 415.4(b)(1)(i)
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (Complaint # NY 00263584) completed on 7/1/2021, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (Complaint # NY 00263584) completed on 7/1/2021, the facility did not ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse are reported immediately but not later than 24 hours after the allegation is made for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, the facility did not report a Resident to Resident physical altercation between Resident #23 and Resident #157 on 8/30/2020 until 9/4/2020 (a 5-day delay) and another altercation between Resident #23 and Resident # 157 on 8/31/2020 until 9/4/2020 (a 4-day delay). The finding is: The Facility's Freedom from Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, and Exploitation policy dated 4/1/91 and last revised on 11/2018 documented that the facility will immediately report alleged violations of abuse to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). The Accident and Incident report dated 8/30/2020 documented that at 1:40 PM, Resident #157 was pushed by Resident #23 resulting in 2 lacerations to the back of Resident # 157's head which required 5 staples. The Accident and Incident report documented that the NYSDOH was notified on 9/4/2020. The Accident and Incident report dated 8/31/2020 documented that at 12:55 PM, Resident # 157 was found sitting on a chair in Resident #23's room. Resident # 157 was found with small lacerations to the left side of their face, near the ear, and under the left nostril. Resident #23 informed the staff that Resident #23 punched Resident #157 in the face. The report documented that the NYSDOH was notified on 9/4/2020. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 6/29/2021 at 3:55 PM. The DNS stated the two incidents were reported on 9/4/2020 and were not reported within the required timeframe in the regulation. The Administrator was interviewed on 6/30/2021 at 1:18 PM. The Administrator stated that the Administrator was aware of the incidents and reviewed them when they were reported to the Administrator. The Administrator stated that there was a delay in reporting the incidents to the NYSDOH because of the Labor Day weekend. The Administrator further stated that the incident should have been reported within 24 hours of the incident. 415.4(b)(2)
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

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 the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (Complaint # NY 00263584) com...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey and the Abbreviated Survey (Complaint # NY 00263584) completed on 7/1/2021, the facility did not ensure that further potential abuse was prevented while the investigation was in progress for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #157 and Resident #23). Specifically, Resident #157 and Resident #23 had a physical altercation on 8/30/2020. Resident #157 was sent to the hospital for evaluation and returned on 8/31/2020. The facility investigation was not thorough to ensure interventions to prevent reoccurrence remained appropriate and effective. Subsequently, on 8/31/2020 Resident #157 and Resident #23 had a second physical altercation. The finding is: Facility Freedom from Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect and Exploitation policy revised on 11/2018 documented that the facility will prevent and protect residents against further potential abuse while an investigation is in process. Prevention was defined as the continuous assessment, care planning and monitoring of residents/registrants with needs and behaviors which might lead to abuse. Resident #157 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Major Depressive Disorder and Seizure Disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #157's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 4, indicating severely impaired cognition. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility with the diagnoses of Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Psychosis, and Anxiety Disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #23 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicating severely impaired cognition. The Accident Incident report dated 8/30/2020 documented that at 1:40 PM, Resident #157 was pushed by Resident #23 which resulted in 2 lacerations to the back of Resident # 157's head that required 5 staples. The facility summary of findings dated 9/4/2020 (from the 8/30/2020 Accident Incident report) documented that Resident # 157 received 5 staples to his head. The residents' rooms were adjacent to each other and possibly Resident #23 misjudged the location of their room and perceived that Resident #157 was in Resident #23's room. The care plan was not reviewed and revised. Staff will continue to observe, monitor, and redirect residents while near each other and to anticipate any untold behavior between the two residents. The facility's investigation identified that the incident occurred because both residents had the diagnosis of Dementia; however, the unit is crowded with residents around the nursing station and there was not enough personal space. The facility concluded that there was no reasonable cause to believe any alleged resident abuse, neglect, or mistreatment occurred. The nurses progress note dated 8/30/2020 at 9:27 PM documented Resident #157 was showing increased signs of lethargy and confusion. Resident #157 was sent out for emergency room at 8:20 PM for further evaluation. The Nurses Progress notes dated 8/31/2020 documented that Resident #157 returned from the hospital at 8:50 AM. Resident #157 was noted with 5 staples to the back of the head. The injury was obtained during a peer to peer incident on 8/30/20. The Accident Incident report dated 8/31/2020 documented that Resident #157 was observed sitting in front of the television where a staff member was feeding another resident. The staff member proceeded to place Resident #157 in the hallway across from the dining room to clean up after lunch, leaving the hallway unattended. At 12:55 PM, Resident # 157 was found sitting on the stationary chair in Resident #23's room. Resident #157 was found with small lacerations to the left side of their face, near the ear, and under the left nostril. Resident #23 informed the staff that Resident #23 punched Resident #157 in the face. CNA #2 was interviewed on 6/29/2021 at 2:41 PM. CNA #2 stated that on 8/31/2020, Resident #23 came out to the doorway and asked, would you get this person out the room? CNA #2 looked past Resident #23 and saw Resident #157 seated in the room with blood on their face. Resident #23 told CNA #2 that Resident #23 punched Resident #157 on the nose and Resident #23 was observed with blood on their hand. CNA #2 brought Resident #157 out of the room and reported to Charge Nurse #1 what was encountered. CNA #2 stated that Resident #23 has a temper and they know that Resident #157 should be redirected away from Resident #23. Resident #157 had a behavior of habitually returning to Resident #23's room because it used to be Resident #157's room in the past. CNA #2 stated that unless there is a 1:1 assigned to Resident #157, there is no way to do continuous monitoring for Resident #157. CNA #2 was not instructed to increase monitoring for Resident #157 on 8/31/2020. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 6/29/2021 at 3:55 PM. The DNS stated there were no new preventative measures put into the care plan on 8/30/2020 for Resident #157. On 8/31/2020, Resident #157 walked into Resident #23's room which resulted in another altercation. The staff member who had left Resident #157 in the hallway was not identified in any of the staff statements. The DNS further stated that the investigation was not complete. 415.4(b)(3)
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 observation, record review, staff interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/1/2021, the facility did ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/1/2021, the facility did not ensure that a person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was developed to meet the resident's current needs. This was identified for 1 (Resident #101) of 2 residents reviewed for Pressure Ulcers (PU). Specifically, Resident #101 was identified with a Stage II PU to the Sacrum on 12/30/2020. There was no documented evidence that a CCP was developed until 1/27/2021 when the PU deteriorated to a Deep Tissue Injury (DTI). The finding is: Resident #101 was admitted with diagnoses that included Coronary Artery Disease, Hypertension, and Peripheral Vascular Disease. A Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had one Stage II PU. A Braden Scale (tool to assess pressure ulcer risk) dated 11/16/2020 documented the resident scored a 13, which indicated the resident was at moderate risk for pressure ulcer development A Pressure Ulcer Record dated 12/30/2020 documented a Stage II PU to the Sacrum measuring 0.3 centimeter (cm) x 0.3 cm x 0.1 cm. The wound base was identified as pink in color and had scant drainage. A CCP dated 12/3/2020 for Potential for Skin Breakdown documented the resident was at risk for skin break down related to incontinence of bowel and bladder and decreased mobility. Interventions included to assist the resident with turning and positioning while in bed every two hours and to encourage the resident to change their position while in the chair. A CCP for PU to the Sacrum dated 1/27/2021 included interventions for use of a pressure ulcer relieving cushion in the wheelchair (w/c) while out of bed, to assess for pain prior to the dressing change, and to administer medication as directed for reports of pain. A wound care observation was conducted on 7/1/2021 at 9:00 AM with the Registered Nurse (RN#10), Charge nurse. The wound to the sacrum was approximately the size of a quarter, with no odor or drainage present, and the wound bed was pink in color. An interview was conducted on 6/30/2021 at 3:12 PM with the Wound Care nurse (RN #9). The RN stated that the PU to the resident's sacrum was first identified on 12/30/2020 as a Stage II PU. The Wound Care RN (#9) stated that there were preventative interventions in place prior to the skin breakdown, however, a CCP for the PU was not developed. The Wound Care RN #9 stated that there should have been a CCP initiated when the PU was identified. RN #5 (Nurse Manager) was interviewed on 7/01/2021 at 1:00 PM. The RN (#5) stated that when a new PU area is identified the wound care RN and MD are notified. RN #5 stated that the Charge nurse is responsible for initiating the CCP for any newly identified PU. The RN further stated that a CCP should have been developed when the wound was first identified. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 7/1/2021 at 1:31 PM and stated that a CCP should have been developed with goals and interventions when the PU was identified. 415.11(c)(1)
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, interviews and record review during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/01/2021, the facility did n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/01/2021, the facility did not ensure that each residents' Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) was reviewed and revised to address the residents' current care needs. This is identified for one (Resident #137) of 3 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. Specifically, Resident #137 did not have a CCP reviewed and revised to address the resident's need for a specialized call bell. The finding is: The Policy and Procedure entitled Comprehensive Care Plan effective 11/2/93 documented the facility will develop a person-centered care plan for each resident to ensure that appropriate care is provided to the resident. The resident's overall health status will be taken into account to ensure that their physical, emotional, psychosocial, and spiritual needs and preferences are met to attain the individual resident's highest practical level of well-being. Initial goals will be developed, and resident centered interventions will be put in place to assist the resident achieve those goals. The Policy and Procedure entitled Call Bell (Lights) effective 9/1/91 documented the facility will ensure that residents' call bells are operable at all times and will be accessible to all residents when needed. The standard system will be modified as necessary to meet the residents' needs. Resident #137 was admitted with the diagnoses of Multiple Sclerosis, Major Depressive Disorder and Essential Hypertension. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #137 sometimes makes self-understood, and usually understands. Required extensive assistance of 2 people for bed mobility, transfers, bathing, and toilet use. Resident #137 required extensive assistance of one person for dressing, eating, and personal hygiene and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #137 was observed on 6/24/2021 at 11:10 AM with a tap bell (a specialized call bell) and a remote control on the resident's chest. The resident was observed with their hands under the sheets. The resident stated that they had difficulty using the tap bell and the remote control. Resident # 137 was observed on 6/29/2021 at 2:32 PM sleeping in bed with a remote on their chest and a specialized call bell on their abdomen. Resident # 137 was observed lying in their bed on 6/29/2021 at 3:15 PM. The specialized call bell was observed to be not within the resident's reach. The RNM who was present during the observation moved the specialized call bell closer to the resident's hand for the resident to access the call bell. The CCP for Communication dated 3/12/2021 documented the resident was at risk for impaired communication secondary to decreased and delayed communication. The interventions included to speak clearly and allow the resident to see staffs' face and mouth while speaking. The interventions were updated on 6/29/2021 (after the surveyor's observation) to include a special call bell. The staff to ensure that the special call bell is securely in place to assist resident to call for assistance. The Activity of Daily Level (ADL) Data Report (directions to the Certified Nursing Assistants regarding the resident's care needs) from 3/1/2021 to 6/30/2021 did not include specialized call bell use for Resident #137. Nursing note dated 4/17/2021 documented that resident complained of increased weakness to the right arm. The Physician was notified. The Physician's (MD) Progress note dated 4/17/2021 documented the resident reported weakness to the right arm that has been ongoing for several months and the resident was now having difficulty with using the call bell. The resident had some movement of upper extremities but was quite limited. Would request Occupational Therapy follow up for best call bell option. The Occupational Therapy evaluation dated on 4/27/2021 documented the resident was seen for increased spasticity of bilateral upper extremities. The resident had severely impaired coordination/dexterity. The Occupational Therapy assessment lacked documented evidence of an evaluation for the use of the specialized call bell. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA#3) was interviewed on 6/29/2021 at 12:00 PM and stated that the resident is alert and cannot move their arms because both arms are weak. The resident has a special call bell that is placed on their abdomen and the resident can use the call bell. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) was interviewed on 6/29/2021 at 12:21 PM and stated that Resident #137 needs total care. The resident can make needs known. The resident has a special call bell because of the difficulty using their hands. The Registered Nurse Manager (#4) was interviewed on 6/29/2021 at 3:02 PM and stated when a resident is admitted to the facility, nursing will assess the resident's ability to use the call bell. Occupational Therapy makes the assessment and recommendation for the use of the tap bell. The use of the tap bell should be documented on the care plan. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 6/30/2021 at 12:25 PM and stated they (DNS) expected the staff to document the use of the special call bell for the resident in their care plan. The Occupational Therapist was interviewed via telephone on 7/0120/21 at 2:15 PM and stated that they recall evaluating the resident for a specialized call bell. The Occupational Therapist stated that the resident's care plan should have been updated to reflect the need for the use of the specialized call bell. 415.11(c)(2)(i-iii)
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, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/1/2021, the facility did no...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/1/2021, the facility did not ensure that all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments. This was identified for 1 (Resident # 631) of 3 residents reviewed for skin conditions, and 1 (Resident # 264) of 4 residents reviewed for Accidents. Specifically, Resident #264 was observed with Zinc Oxide 20% cream on the over-the-bed table within Resident # 264's room and Resident #631 was observed with Zinc Oxide 20% cream on the window sill in Resident #631's room. There were no staff members present in either Resident #264 or Resident #631's room at the time of the observations. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure for Storage of Medications, last revised 5/2021, documented that all medications, treatments, and other drugs shall be stored in a locked medication room, cabinet, or medications cart, accessible only to authorized facility personnel. 1) Resident #631 was admitted with diagnoses of unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, and Heart Disease. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 which indicated severely impaired cognition. Section M of the MDS for skin conditions documented the resident had Moist Associated Skin Damage. The MDS documented the resident was always incontinent of bowel. The Physician's order dated 6/8/2021 documented to apply a topical treatment of Zinc Oxide 20% three times a day (one time each shift) to the Intergluteal fold (a fold on the back of the upper thigh that marks the upper limit of the thigh from the lower limit of the buttock) for maceration. On 6/24/2021 at 11:30 AM, Resident #631 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in their room. A topical zinc oxide 20% container was observed on the window sill in Resident #631's room. 2) Resident #264 was admitted with diagnoses of Cholecystitis, Congestive Heart Failure, and Urinary Tract Infection. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS documented the resident was always incontinent of bowel. The MDS documented the resident was at risk for pressure ulcer development. The resident had one or more venous or arterial ulcers present. The Physician's order dated 5/24/2021 documented to apply a topical treatment of Zinc Oxide 20% three times a day (one time every shift) to the peri-anal area for excoriation. On 6/24/2021 at 11:00 AM Resident #264 was observed in their bed and was subsequently observed at 2:00 PM sitting in the wheelchair in their room. A topical Zinc Oxide 20% container was observed on the over-the-bed table in Resident #264's room on both observations. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Zinc Oxide Ointment dated 9/6/20215, provided by the facility, documented that Zinc Oxide ointment is a white ointment with a petroleum jelly odor. Health Hazards include that the product may be harmful if swallowed and eye contact may cause irritation. The Registered Nurse (RN) Charge Nurse (RN#5) was interviewed on 6/29/2021 at 2 PM and stated that they (RN#5) and the other nurses apply the ointments and creams. After the treatments are done the prescribed creams must be stored and secured in the treatment carts. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was interviewed on 6/30/2021 at 2:35 PM and stated that the prescribed creams and ointments must be stored securely in the treatment carts after the treatments are completed. 415.18(e)(1-4)
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/1/2021, the facility did not dispose of refuse and garbage properly. Specifically, the facility did not ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews during the Recertification Survey completed on 7/1/2021, the facility did not dispose of refuse and garbage properly. Specifically, the facility did not ensure that the area surrounding the garbage compactor was kept clean and free of debris. This was identified on two separate observations; during the initial tour of the kitchen on 6/24/2021, and a subsequent visit to the garbage storage area five days later on 6/29/2021. The finding is: During the initial kitchen tour on 6/24/2021 at 11:30 AM, the area surrounding the garbage compactor was observed to be littered with 3 pairs of used blue surgical gloves and 2 opened institutional size #10 food cans. The General Manager of Food Service was present during the tour and acknowledged the presence of blue gloves and empty cans on the ground near the garbage compactor. The garbage area was observed on 6/29/2021 at 1:00 PM with the General Manager of Food Service. A clear plastic bag was observed on the ground to the left of the elevated platform leading to the garbage compactor. The plastic bag contained waste including empty glove boxes, empty surgical mask boxes, napkins, tissues and plastic wraps. In addition, an opened institutional size #10 food can, a single blue surgical glove, one large empty plastic jar, one sealed blue recycling bag, three flattened cardboard boxes and a clear plastic bag which contained used paper cups were identified on the ground at the base of the compactor. The Director of Support Services was interviewed on 6/30/2021 at 11:25 AM. The Director of Support Services stated that the dumpster container was removed and replaced once every 1-2 weeks and as needed. The Director of Support Services stated that an assigned staff member usually cleaned the area when the dumpster was pulled out to be replaced because it was easier to clean when the dumpster was removed. The Director of Support Services and the Housekeeping Manager were interviewed concurrently on 6/30/2021 at 12:00 PM. The Housekeeping Manager stated the dumpster was removed and replaced twice a week and as needed. The Housekeeping Manager stated that the garbage compactor and the area surrounding the compactor should be kept clean. The Director of Support Services stated that the facility did not have a scheduled routine cleaning of the area. The Director of Support Service further stated that there was no policy related to scheduled cleaning. 415.14(h)
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in New York.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
  • • 33% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 10 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Long Island State Veterans Home's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within New York, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Long Island State Veterans Home Staffed?

CMS rates LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 33%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Long Island State Veterans Home?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 8 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Long Island State Veterans Home?

LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility is operated by STATE OF NEW YORK COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 350 certified beds and approximately 310 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a large facility located in STONYBROOK, New York.

How Does Long Island State Veterans Home Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (33%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Long Island State Veterans Home?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Long Island State Veterans Home Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Long Island State Veterans Home Stick Around?

LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME has a staff turnover rate of 33%, 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 Long Island State Veterans Home Ever Fined?

LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Long Island State Veterans Home on Any Federal Watch List?

LONG ISLAND STATE VETERANS HOME 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.