Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Dumont Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing Care during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not consistently review and revise comprehensive care plans or conduct required interdisciplinary care plan meetings. An abuse care plan for a resident with psychiatric and respiratory diagnoses was not updated after its last revision despite ongoing quarterly assessments. Another resident receiving IV hydration for weakness and poor oral intake had no corresponding update to the care plan to address IV therapy. A cognitively intact resident with diabetes and ESRD did not have a scheduled quarterly care plan meeting held, and reported not recalling any invitation or attendance. Staff interviews showed that social services, the MDS department, and the DON had differing understandings of who was responsible for updating care plans and scheduling care plan meetings.
Surveyors found that hot foods served on two units during lunch were not maintained at the facility’s required minimum of 140°F. Policy required all hot items to reach residents at or above this temperature, but test trays on both regular and puree diets showed food temperatures ranging from 90°F to 130°F after delivery to resident rooms. The Food Service Director confirmed that hot foods should be above 140°F to be palatable and acknowledged that the observed meal service did not meet this standard, despite prior efforts to address earlier food temperature concerns.
A cognitively intact resident with schizophrenia, DM, and a seizure disorder had expressed that it was very important for family or friends to be involved in care discussions, but the facility did not ensure that the resident’s group home representatives were included in person-centered care planning. The group home’s Resident Manager and Executive Director reported they wanted to be involved and were listed as contacts, yet they were not invited to care plan meetings and were sometimes denied information due to outdated contact information. The SW and Director of Social Services stated that representatives were only invited to initial, significant change, and discharge care plan meetings, not quarterly meetings, and the ADON, RN Manager, and DON all reported having no direct communication with the resident’s representatives, resulting in the representatives not being afforded the opportunity to participate in the resident’s care planning.
The facility did not report an allegation of verbal abuse to the state as required. An Ombudsman informed the DON that a resident with psychiatric and respiratory diagnoses, but intact cognition, alleged that a NP verbally abused them during an encounter in which the NP and an RN entered the room to provide requested lab results and the resident became agitated, verbally abusive, and refused to sign for receipt of the results. Despite facility policies requiring prompt reporting of suspected abuse to the Department of Health, there was no documentation that this allegation was reported.
A resident with intact cognition and psychiatric diagnoses alleged that a nurse practitioner verbally abused them during an encounter related to delivery of lab results. The facility’s abuse investigation policy required a thorough investigation of potential abuse, but the facility only obtained written statements from the NP and a supervising RN, who reported that the resident became agitated, verbally abusive, and refused to sign for the lab results. The facility did not interview the resident, other residents, or additional staff, nor did it document a complete investigative conclusion or related corrective actions, resulting in a failure to fully investigate the verbal abuse allegation.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and a history of seizure disorder, hypothyroidism, and brain malignancy was discharged home after IV hydration orders were discontinued, but the IV access device was not removed and the discharge summary lacked instructions regarding IV access. Nursing notes indicated the resident was sent home with discharge medications, yet the facility’s discharge protocol requiring two-nurse verification of medications and removal of medical appliances was not followed, resulting in the resident being discharged with an IV access device still in place and a blister pack of medication that belonged to another resident.
A resident with seizure disorder, hypothyroidism, and brain malignancy received IV fluids for bradycardia and later for hypernatremia, but the facility failed to follow its own IV administration and line management policies. For both a peripheral IV and a midline catheter, there was no documentation of insertion date/time, site location, site assessments, resident tolerance, or verification of device placement, and nursing assessments were not consistently recorded each shift while IV fluids were infusing. The MAR showed multiple IV administrations, yet one shift lacked any documented IV administration or assessment, and nursing notes inconsistently described whether the access was a peripheral line or a midline. During interviews, an RN and the DON confirmed that required IV placement and monitoring documentation was missing, while the NP explained the ordering process and expectation for provider notification at completion of IV therapy.
A facility failed to report an alleged sexual abuse incident involving a resident with impaired cognition to the NYSDOH within the required 2-hour timeframe. The incident was reported by the resident's family, and the facility, after consulting with the Administrator, decided to report it within 24 hours, believing immediate reporting was only necessary if there was harm. This decision led to a deficiency in timely reporting.
A resident was exposed to an odor from glue while maintenance staff repaired flooring in their room. The resident was not removed due to feeling unwell, and the maintenance staff did not inform nursing staff of the repairs. Facility staff acknowledged that residents should not be present during such repairs, and the maintenance staff's actions were against policy.
A resident was discharged from the facility without the completion and transmission of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) Discharge Assessment. The resident, who had conditions such as asthma and hyperlipidemia, was discharged home, but the MDS coordinator missed completing the necessary discharge assessment. The Director of Nursing was unaware of this oversight, as the MDS department functions separately from nursing.
A resident at risk for pressure ulcers was not provided with heel booties as per their care plan, leading to a deficiency in care. Despite orders to offload heels with booties, staff were unaware of this requirement, resulting in the resident's heels resting directly on the mattress. Interviews revealed a communication breakdown among staff regarding the resident's care plan.
The facility did not maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen, as observed during a survey. Blue cup racks, claimed to be clean, were stored on the floor and later combined with other clean racks for use. This action violated the facility's policy on preventing contamination, as confirmed by the Director of Dietary Service.
The facility failed to implement proper infection control measures for a resident with C. difficile, who was placed in a shared room instead of a private one, and the infection was not tracked for five days. Additionally, another resident's ventilator tubing was not changed as per the facility's policy, being five days overdue. These lapses indicate deficiencies in infection prevention and equipment maintenance protocols.
Failure to Review, Revise, and Conduct Interdisciplinary Care Plan Meetings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly assessment and failed to hold required quarterly care plan meetings with resident participation. For a resident with paranoid personality disorder, major depressive disorder, and COPD, an abuse care plan initiated in December 2023 and last revised in February 2024 showed no further documented evaluation or revision despite subsequent quarterly MDS assessments, contrary to facility policy requiring quarterly and periodic review. Social services staff acknowledged that the abuse care plan should have been updated quarterly and that their department was responsible for this task, noting that a consultant who normally audits care plans had been covering for another social worker. Another resident with seizure disorder, hypothyroidism, and malignant neoplasm of the brain experienced weakness and poor oral intake, leading to a physician order for IV hydration with 0.45% sodium chloride administered over several days; however, there was no documented evidence that the resident’s comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised to address the IV fluid therapy. In addition, a cognitively intact resident with diabetes mellitus and end stage renal disease, whose MDS documented resident and family participation in assessment and goal setting, did not have a quarterly care plan meeting held as scheduled. Although the care plan meeting schedule showed two planned conference dates, there was no documentation in the medical record that the meeting occurred, and the resident reported not remembering being invited or attending. Staff interviews revealed confusion and differing understandings among the MDS department, social workers, and the DON regarding responsibility for scheduling and conducting these care plan meetings.
Failure to Maintain Hot Food at Required Serving Temperatures During Meal Service
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that hot foods were served at palatable and appetizing temperatures during lunch meal service on two of six units observed. Facility policy titled "Food Temperatures" required all hot food items to be served to residents at a temperature of at least 140°F at the time the resident received the food. The meal delivery schedule showed that lunch for one unit was scheduled for 11:55 AM and another unit at 12:10 PM. On the day of observation, a food truck was delivered to the first floor at 11:50 AM, and staff distributed trays to residents in their rooms until 12:10 PM. Test trays conducted at 12:10 PM on the first floor with the Food Service Director showed that items on a regular diet tray (baked potato, turkey chili, green beans) measured between 90°F and 110°F, and items on a puree diet tray (mashed potato, puree green beans, puree turkey) measured between 122°F and 130°F, all below the required 140°F. On the second floor, the food truck arrived at 12:15 PM, and staff delivered trays to residents in their rooms until 12:39 PM. Test trays conducted at 12:39 PM with the Food Service Director showed that items on a puree diet tray (puree green beans, puree turkey, mashed potato) measured between 124°F and 130°F, and items on a regular diet tray (baked potato, green beans, turkey chili with beans) measured between 116°F and 123°F, again below the facility’s required hot food temperature. During an interview, the Food Service Director stated that hot foods should be served above 140°F to be palatable and acknowledged that hot foods were not maintained at the appropriate temperature range during the observed meal service. The Director also stated that food temperature issues had been brought up in the past and previously addressed by replacing equipment and conducting monthly temperature audits, and that no further issues had been reported since then.
Failure to Involve Resident Representative in Person-Centered Care Planning
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency in the facility’s failure to ensure that a cognitively intact resident and the resident’s chosen representatives were able to participate in all aspects of person-centered care planning. The resident, admitted with schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus, and seizure disorder, had an admission MDS documenting that it was very important for family or friends to be involved in discussions about their care. The facility’s policy stated that residents and/or family would be invited to interdisciplinary care plan meetings for comprehensive assessments. However, the quarterly MDS documented the resident as cognitively intact, and there was no documented evidence that the resident’s representatives were invited to initial or quarterly care plan meetings. The Social Worker reported that if a resident refused to attend, the IDT met without the resident or representative, and that representatives were only invited to initial, significant change, and discharge care plan meetings, not quarterly meetings. The resident’s group home, where the resident had lived prior to admission, reported that the facility refused to discuss the resident’s care with them or other group home representatives. The group home Resident Manager stated that one listed contact was outdated, and that current contacts included a group home RN and the Executive Director, none of whom were invited to care plan meetings or involved in the resident’s care despite their expressed desire to be involved. The Executive Director confirmed wanting to attend care plan meetings but not receiving invitations. The ADON and a unit RN Manager both stated they had not communicated with the resident’s representatives and indicated that the Social Worker was responsible for updating contacts and inviting representatives. The Director of Social Services confirmed that representatives were not invited to quarterly care plan meetings and was unaware that the resident’s representatives wanted to be involved, and the DON stated they were not aware that the representatives felt excluded and had not personally communicated with them. These actions and inactions resulted in the resident’s representatives not being afforded the opportunity to participate in the resident’s care planning process, in violation of 10 NYCRR 415.11(c)(2)(i-iii).
Failure to Timely Report Allegation of Verbal Abuse to State Authorities
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that an allegation of verbal abuse was reported to the New York State Department of Health within the required time frames. During a recertification and abbreviated survey, record review and interviews showed that an Ombudsman informed the Director of Nursing that Resident #35 alleged a Nurse Practitioner verbally abused them. Despite this allegation, there was no documented evidence that the incident was reported to the Department of Health as required by regulation and by the facility’s own abuse reporting policies. Resident #35 had diagnoses of Paranoid Personality Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, with a recent assessment indicating intact cognition and a need for supervision to moderate assistance with ADLs and mobility. Documentation from the Nurse Practitioner and supervising Registered Nurse described an encounter in which they entered the resident’s room to provide requested lab results, after which the resident became agitated, verbally abusive, and refused to sign for receipt of the results, ultimately yelling at them to leave the room. This encounter formed the basis of the resident’s allegation of verbal abuse, yet the facility did not initiate the required external report of this alleged abuse to the state authority.
Failure to Thoroughly Investigate Allegation of Verbal Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to thoroughly investigate an allegation of verbal abuse made by a resident against a nurse practitioner. The facility’s abuse investigation policy required that a staff nurse initiate an incident report, notify a supervisor, and that the supervisor and Director of Nursing (DON) determine the need for an investigation and possible reporting to the Department of Health. On 01/05/2026, the Ombudsman notified the facility that Resident #35 alleged that Nurse Practitioner #1 verbally abused them. Resident #35 had diagnoses including Paranoid Personality Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and a recent MDS documented intact cognition with a need for supervision to moderate assistance for activities of daily living. The facility collected written statements from Nurse Practitioner #1 and the supervising Registered Nurse #4 describing an encounter on 12/26/2025 in which the resident became agitated when awakened, refused to sign for laboratory results, and was verbally abusive toward the nurse practitioner and RN, repeatedly yelling for them to leave the room. Despite the Ombudsman’s report of alleged verbal abuse and the facility’s policy requiring investigation of potential abuse, the facility’s investigation was limited to the two staff statements and did not include an interview or statement from the alleged victim, other residents on the unit, or other staff who might have witnessed the incident or had knowledge of interactions between the nurse practitioner and other residents. During a later interview, the resident stated that the nurse practitioner is “bad” and yells and screams at them. The DON reported that they concluded there was no evidence of abuse and that the resident was actually abusive to the nurse practitioner, noting that the resident tends to confabulate, but there was no documented evidence of a thorough investigation, no documented conclusion of the investigation, and no documented determination of appropriate corrective action if the allegation had been verified. This failure to conduct and document a complete investigation of an alleged verbal abuse incident constituted noncompliance with the requirement to respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
Resident Discharged Home With IV Access Device and Another Resident’s Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that services provided met professional standards of quality when a resident was discharged home with an intravenous (IV) access device still in place and with medications that belonged to another resident. The resident had diagnoses including seizure disorder, hypothyroidism, and malignant neoplasm of the brain, and an admission MDS documented moderately impaired cognition. A physician’s order dated 03/14/2025 authorized a midline IV and 0.45% sodium chloride IV solution at 50 cc/hour every shift for nine doses for hydration, and this order was discontinued on 03/17/2025. On the same day, nursing notes documented that the resident was discharged home with medications taken and with discharge medications provided. The facility’s Day of Discharge Protocol and Procedure required licensed nurses to verify discharge medications with two nurses for accuracy and to remove all medical appliances, such as IV lines, per physician’s order prior to discharge. Despite these requirements, the resident’s interdisciplinary discharge summary did not include any discharge plan or care instructions related to the IV access device. An occurrence report investigation documented that the facility was notified by a hospice nurse that the resident had been discharged home with an IV access device still in place and a blister pack of medication that did not belong to the resident. The Director of Nursing’s review of the incident found that the nurse responsible for the discharge disconnected the IV line but did not remove the IV access device, and that the resident was given discharge medications that included another resident’s blister pack. These actions and omissions occurred during the discharge process conducted by the nursing staff on the unit.
Failure to Document and Monitor IV and Midline Therapy per Professional Standards
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a failure to ensure parenteral fluids were administered consistent with professional standards of practice for one resident who received IV therapy for bradycardia and later for hypernatremia. The facility’s IV policies required verification of provider orders, proper labeling and setup, monitoring of infusions, and documentation of IV insertion, site assessments, and dressing and tubing changes, as well as every-shift monitoring for signs of infection or infiltration. Despite these requirements, the resident’s medical record lacked documentation of the date and time of IV insertions, site assessments, the resident’s tolerance, and verification of device placement for both a peripheral IV and a midline catheter. For the first IV course, a physician ordered 0.9% sodium chloride at 75 cc/hr for three doses to support hemodynamic stability after bradycardia was noted. A nursing note confirmed a peripheral line order, but there was no documentation of when or where the IV was inserted, nor any site assessment or tolerance. The MAR showed two administrations of the ordered IV solution across two shifts, but there was no documented administration or assessment during the intervening shift. Additionally, there was no documentation that the resident was evaluated to determine whether the IV access device should be maintained or removed after completion of the ordered IV therapy. A later nursing note documented that the peripheral IV in the left hand became dislodged and was bleeding, at which time the line was removed and the site cleaned and dressed. For the second IV course, following lab results showing elevated sodium, a physician ordered a midline via an IV vendor and 0.45% sodium chloride at 50 cc/hr every shift for nine doses for hydration. A nurse documented two unsuccessful peripheral IV attempts and that a midline was ordered, and a later note documented that IV fluids were started, but there was no documentation of the midline placement, including date and time, site assessment, resident tolerance, or verification of insertion. The MAR showed that the IV solution was administered over multiple shifts, but nursing notes from this period did not consistently document assessments and monitoring of the IV site. The notes inconsistently described the device as a peripheral line in the left arm or left hand and as a midline in the left upper arm. During interviews, an RN and the DON acknowledged that documentation of IV placement and ongoing assessment was missing, and the NP described the ordering process and expectation that providers be notified upon completion of IV therapy for reevaluation of treatment or removal of the access device.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an alleged incident of sexual abuse involving a resident to the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) within the required 2-hour timeframe. The incident involved a resident with moderately impaired cognition and no behavioral symptoms, who was admitted with diagnoses including diabetes, muscle weakness, difficulty walking, and a displaced comminuted fracture of the right femur. On February 10, 2024, the resident's family informed the facility that the resident had reported being molested by an unknown male who entered their room at midnight. The family and police were notified, but the family declined to send the resident to the hospital. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator reviewed the incident and decided to report it within 24 hours, believing that immediate reporting was only necessary if there was harm. The incident was reported to the NYSDOH on February 11, 2024, at 11:21 AM, which was beyond the required 2-hour reporting window. This decision was based on the Administrator's interpretation of the guidelines, which was incorrect as per the regulation 10NYCRR 415.4 (b)(2)(3), leading to a deficiency in timely reporting of alleged abuse.
Resident Exposed to Odor During In-Room Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
During a recertification survey, it was observed that a resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment was not maintained. Specifically, a maintenance staff member was repairing the flooring in a resident's room using glue that emitted an odor while the resident was present. The resident was lying in bed, and the bed had been moved to allow access to the flooring. The maintenance staff did not inform the nursing staff about the repair work, and the resident was not removed from the room despite the presence of the odor. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of communication and adherence to policy regarding maintenance work in resident rooms. A Licensed Practical Nurse and the Registered Nurse Unit Manager both acknowledged that residents should not be present during such repairs. However, the resident was not moved due to an episode of emesis. The Maintenance Director confirmed that residents should not be in the room during repairs unless there is a special circumstance, which was not the case here. The facility's Administrator stated that the maintenance staff's actions were against policy, and the staff member was subsequently written up.
Failure to Complete and Transmit MDS Discharge Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the completion and transmission of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) Discharge Assessment for a resident who was discharged from the facility. The resident, who had diagnoses including asthma, glaucoma, and hyperlipidemia, was discharged to home on February 16, 2024. However, the MDS Discharge Assessment was not completed or submitted at the time of the survey conducted from April 24, 2024, through May 1, 2024. This oversight was identified during a review of the resident's electronic medical record, which revealed the incomplete status of the discharge assessment. Interviews conducted during the survey revealed that the MDS coordinator acknowledged missing the completion of the MDS Discharge Assessment for the resident. The last assessment completed for the resident was a Comprehensive MDS 5-day assessment on December 1, 2023. The Director of Nursing was unaware of the incomplete discharge assessment, noting that the MDS department operates separately from the nursing department. This deficiency was cited under 10 NYCRR 415.11(a).
Failure to Implement Pressure Ulcer Prevention Measures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident received appropriate care to prevent pressure ulcers, as observed during a recertification survey. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, muscle weakness, and schizophrenia, was identified as being at risk for pressure ulcers. Despite having a care plan intervention and physician's order to offload heels with heel booties while in bed, the resident was repeatedly observed in bed without the heel booties and with their heels resting directly on the mattress. There was no documentation indicating that the resident refused to wear the heel booties. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of awareness and communication regarding the resident's care plan. A Certified Nurse Assistant stated they were not aware that the resident was supposed to use heel booties and had never seen them on the resident. Similarly, a Licensed Practical Nurse was unaware of any order for heel booties and mentioned that new orders are typically communicated through a 24-hour report, which they might have missed. This lack of adherence to the care plan and communication breakdown contributed to the deficiency in providing necessary pressure ulcer prevention care.
Sanitary Conditions Not Maintained in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the main kitchen area, specifically in the dishwasher section. During the recertification survey, it was observed that blue cup racks, which were claimed to be clean, were stored on the floor. These racks were later picked up and combined with other clean racks for further use. The facility's policy on the storage of utensils, trays, and racks to prevent contamination states that clean equipment should be stored in a clean, dry location to protect them from contamination. However, during an observation, a Dietary Aide was seen loading blue cup racks onto a cart and then picking up two racks from the floor, which were stored under the dishwasher transporter, and combining them with other racks. The Director of Dietary Service confirmed that this action was incorrect and that the clean racks were contaminated and should not be used.
Infection Control and Equipment Maintenance Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by the mishandling of a Clostridium Difficile (C. difficile) infection case. Resident #101, who was ventilator-dependent, was readmitted from the hospital with a C. difficile infection. Despite physician orders for contact precautions and the facility's policy requiring a private room for such infections, Resident #101 was placed in a shared room with another ventilator-dependent resident, Resident #27, who did not have a C. difficile infection. The Infection Preventionist was unaware of Resident #101's infection for five days post-readmission, resulting in a lack of proper tracking and monitoring. Additionally, the Infection Preventionist admitted to forgetting about the infection, which contributed to the oversight in infection control measures. Furthermore, the facility failed to adhere to its policy regarding the maintenance of respiratory care equipment. Resident #113, who was in a persistent vegetative state and dependent on a ventilator, had their ventilator tubing overdue for replacement by five days. The facility's policy required ventilator circuits to be changed every two weeks, but the tubing for Resident #113 was not changed as scheduled. The Director of Respiratory confirmed the oversight, acknowledging that the tubing should have been replaced earlier. These deficiencies highlight lapses in the facility's infection control practices and equipment maintenance protocols.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 1,374 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 18 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near New Rochelle
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayberry Nursing Home | 0.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation | 0.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 11 | 0 |
| United Hebrew Geriatric Center | 0.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Schaffer Extended Care Center | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Sutton Park Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation | 1.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Dumont Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing Care.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.