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 Fordham Nursing And Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A deficiency was cited when an area of the facility was not kept free from accident hazards and adequate supervision was not provided to prevent accidents. The environment and supervision protocols were found to be insufficient to minimize accident risks.
The facility failed to follow infection control practices, with expired mayonnaise found in the kitchen and a CNA not performing hand hygiene between assisting residents during dining. Despite regular checks and in-services, these lapses were acknowledged by staff, highlighting a risk of cross-contamination and infection spread.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was found on the floor with a head contusion and hand laceration after an unwitnessed fall. Despite the injuries, the facility did not report the incident to the New York State Department of Health, concluding there was no abuse or neglect involved.
The facility failed to ensure accurate MDS assessments for two residents, leading to incorrect documentation of medication and hospice services. One resident was incorrectly coded as receiving anticoagulant medication, while another was inaccurately documented as receiving hospice care after services were discontinued. These errors were due to coding mistakes and a lack of timely corrections.
A non-English speaking resident with severe cognitive impairment was not provided with an appropriate activity program tailored to their interests and preferences. The facility failed to conduct a comprehensive assessment involving the resident's family and did not effectively use translation services, resulting in limited engagement in activities.
A facility failed to ensure timely follow-up on an Optometry consult for a resident, resulting in a five-month delay in reviewing a recommendation for cataract surgery. The attending physician signed the consult late, and there was no documentation of the resident's preference to see an outside Ophthalmologist, nor evidence that the referral was made. The Medical Director acknowledged the oversight.
The facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices during tube feeding for residents with gastrostomy tubes. An LPN did not wear a gown, as required by enhanced barrier precautions, while administering enteral feeding. Despite being informed about PPE requirements, the LPN admitted to forgetting to wear the gown, highlighting a deficiency in adherence to infection control protocols.
A facility failed to adhere to a resident's bathing preferences, providing fewer showers than scheduled and substituting with bed baths without proper documentation. The resident, who was cognitively intact, had specific preferences for bathing that were not documented in their care plan. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in understanding and executing the resident's shower schedule, leading to the deficiency.
Failure to Maintain Accident-Free Environment and Provide Adequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified due to the failure to ensure that a specific area within the facility was free from accident hazards and that adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents. The report notes that the environment was not maintained in a manner that would minimize the risk of accidents, and supervision protocols were insufficient to prevent such incidents from occurring. No additional details regarding the specific individuals involved, their medical history, or their condition at the time of the deficiency are provided in the report.
Infection Control Deficiencies in Kitchen and Dining Room
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to infection control practices during the recertification survey, as evidenced by two main deficiencies. Firstly, in the kitchen, expired food items, specifically mayonnaise, were found in the emergency food storage area. The storeroom person acknowledged noticing expired items, including mayonnaise, but failed to discard them promptly. The Food Service Supervisors and the Dietary Director admitted to overlooking the expired items, despite regular checks, and emphasized the importance of discarding expired food to prevent potential health risks. Secondly, during a dining observation, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not perform hand hygiene between assisting multiple residents with hand hygiene before lunch. The CNA used bare hands to distribute hand sanitizing wipes and assist residents, failing to clean their hands between residents. This lapse in hand hygiene was acknowledged by the CNA, who admitted to understanding the importance of preventing cross-contamination and infection spread among residents. Interviews with the Infection Preventionist and Registered Nurses highlighted the facility's awareness of the importance of hand hygiene and the need for staff to follow infection control protocols. Despite recent in-services on hand hygiene, the failure to adhere to these practices during the dining task was evident, posing a risk of spreading germs and infections among residents.
Failure to Report Resident Fall Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an incident involving a resident, identified as Resident #209, who was found on the floor with a laceration on the hand and a head contusion. The incident was unwitnessed, and the resident, who has severe cognitive impairment and is dependent on staff assistance for mobility, was unable to provide an explanation due to a language barrier. Despite the injuries sustained, which included a contusion to the scalp and a skin tear to the right hand, the facility did not report the incident to the New York State Department of Health as required by regulations. The facility's investigation concluded that the resident rolled out of bed, resulting in the injuries, and determined there was no abuse, neglect, or mistreatment involved. The Director of Nursing Services and the Administrator signed off on the investigation summary, which stated that the incident would not be reported to the Department of Health. However, the facility's policy mandates that all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, including significant injuries of unknown source, should be reported immediately to the appropriate authorities.
Inaccurate MDS Assessments for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the status of two residents, leading to deficiencies in the documentation of their care. Resident #170, who was not receiving anticoagulant medication, was incorrectly coded as receiving such medication. This error was identified during a review of the resident's medication records, which showed that the resident was actually on antiplatelet medication, Clopidogrel Bisulfate. The Minimum Data Set Coordinator acknowledged the mistake and noted that the MDS Assessor was responsible for the accuracy of the assessment. Resident #79 was inaccurately coded as receiving hospice services after these services had been discontinued. The resident's records indicated that hospice services were ordered from November 2023 to May 2024, but the MDS assessment continued to reflect hospice care beyond this period. Interviews with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator and other staff revealed that the error was due to a misunderstanding of the resident's current status, as hospice services had been discontinued prior to the assessment reference date. The deficiencies in the MDS assessments for both residents were attributed to coding errors and a lack of accurate reflection of the residents' clinical status. The facility's policy required that any errors discovered in a completed MDS must be corrected through the appropriate modification process. However, these errors were not identified and corrected in a timely manner, leading to inaccuracies in the residents' care documentation.
Deficiency in Activity Program for Non-English Speaking Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities tailored to the interests and preferences of a non-English speaking resident, identified as Resident #209, who was reviewed for activities during a recertification survey. The facility's policy requires a comprehensive assessment and a care plan that reflects the resident's leisure and lifestyle satisfaction. However, Resident #209, who speaks Mandarin and has severely impaired cognition, was not appropriately assessed for activity preferences. The resident's family, who could provide insight into the resident's preferences, was not contacted regarding daily and activity preferences. Observations revealed that Resident #209 was often found lying in bed with the television on a channel not in their preferred language, and the remote control was not easily accessible. The resident's activity log showed participation in only one activity program over a period of several weeks, and there was no documented evidence of activities being offered or refused. Interviews with staff indicated that the resident was dependent on assistance for all activities of daily living and was mostly confined to bed, with limited engagement in social activities. The recreation staff did not utilize translation services effectively to assess the resident's preferences, relying instead on simple gestures and yes/no responses. The recreation director acknowledged that the assessment was conducted with an interpreter hotline, but the resident was unable to complete the interview due to confusion. This lack of a comprehensive assessment and engagement in activities tailored to the resident's interests and functional capacity constitutes a deficiency in meeting the resident's psychosocial well-being needs.
Failure to Follow Up on Optometry Consult
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the physician reviewed the resident's total program of care at each visit, as evidenced by the case of a resident who was reviewed for an Optometry consult. The Optometry consult, which recommended a referral to an Ophthalmologist for cataract surgery, was dated 04/05/2024, but the attending physician did not review and sign the consult until 09/07/2024, five months later. There was no documented evidence that the recommendation to see the Ophthalmologist was carried out, nor was there documentation of the resident refusing the recommendation. Interviews revealed that the Nurse Practitioner was aware of the Optometry consultation and discussed the recommendation with the resident, who preferred to follow up with their outside Ophthalmologist. However, this discussion was not documented. The attending physician stated that they did not speak to the resident regarding the recommendation and were unsure if the referral was made. The Medical Director confirmed that the recommendation should have been carried out, indicating a lapse in the facility's process for handling medical consultations and follow-ups.
Failure to Adhere to Enhanced Barrier Precautions During Tube Feeding
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain proper infection control prevention practices during the administration of tube feeding for residents with gastrostomy tubes, as observed during the recertification survey. Specifically, enhanced barrier precautions were not adhered to, which is a requirement for residents with indwelling medical devices, such as gastrostomy tubes. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued guidance effective April 1, 2024, mandating the use of enhanced barrier precautions, including gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities. During the survey, it was observed that a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) did not wear a gown while administering enteral feeding to a resident with a gastrostomy tube, despite having brought the gown into the room. The LPN admitted to forgetting to put on the gown, although they wore gloves throughout the procedure. The LPN acknowledged the importance of wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent the transmission of infections, especially since the resident had an open site due to the gastrostomy tube. Interviews with the nursing staff, including a Registered Nurse and the Infection Preventionist, revealed that staff are informed about the necessity of PPE for residents on enhanced barrier precautions. The Infection Preventionist conducts daily rounds to ensure compliance with PPE requirements. However, the lapse in protocol by the LPN during the observed incident indicates a deficiency in adherence to the infection control policy, which is crucial for preventing the spread of infections in the facility.
Failure to Adhere to Resident's Bathing Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promote and facilitate resident self-determination by not adhering to a resident's preferred bathing schedule. Resident #190, who was cognitively intact and had specific preferences for bathing, was not provided showers according to their wishes. The facility's policy required a minimum of two baths or showers per week unless otherwise requested by the resident. However, documentation revealed that Resident #190 received fewer showers than scheduled, with only one shower documented in September 2024. Interviews with staff indicated that showers were often replaced with bed baths, and there was no evidence of the resident refusing showers or preferring bed baths. The deficiency was further highlighted by the lack of documentation in the resident's care plan regarding their specific bathing preferences. Staff interviews revealed inconsistencies in the understanding and execution of the resident's shower schedule. The Certified Nursing Assistant and Registered Nurse responsible for Resident #190 were unaware of any refusals or changes in preference, and the Director of Nursing confirmed that the resident was mostly given bed baths without proper documentation or notification of refusals. This lack of adherence to the resident's preferences and inadequate documentation led to the deficiency identified during the survey.
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 1,579 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 20 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 Bronx
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Plaza Rehab And Nursing Center | 0.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| University Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing | 0.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Manhattanville Health Care Center | 0.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Prestige Nursing Care & Rehab Center | 0.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 11 | 0 |
| New Riverdale Rehab And Nursing | 1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Fordham Nursing And Rehabilitation Center.
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.