Above 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 St Marys Center Inc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment, with issues such as torn window screens, dusty surfaces, and broken furniture observed across multiple units. Residents reported long-standing maintenance problems, including broken windows and unclean bathrooms. Staff interviews revealed inadequate housekeeping and maintenance practices, with limited oversight and unresolved issues despite awareness by the administration.
The facility did not ensure secure storage of Schedule II controlled drugs in Unit 2. The Narcotic Box was inadequately secured with a padlock due to a malfunctioning primary lock, leaving a wide opening. The issue was acknowledged by the Assistant DON, and the LPN could not explain the problem.
The facility failed to develop a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for a resident with an active urinary tract infection (UTI). Despite the resident being prescribed antibiotics and reporting symptoms, there was no documented care plan addressing the infection specifically. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and documentation regarding a specific care plan for the UTI.
Facility Fails to Maintain Safe and Clean Environment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for its residents, as observed during the Recertification Survey. The survey revealed significant cleanliness and maintenance issues across multiple units, including torn window screens, dusty windowsills, embedded dirt in floor corners, and furniture in disrepair. Additionally, there were reports of leaks in the ceiling and resident equipment that was not cleaned. These deficiencies were noted in Units 2, 3, and 5, as well as in common areas such as the lobby and community room. Interviews with residents highlighted ongoing issues with maintenance and cleanliness. One resident reported a broken window covered with duct tape and plastic, which had been in that condition for years. Another resident expressed dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of their bathroom, stating it always appeared dirty. These resident accounts were corroborated by observations of broken and dirty window shades, cracked windows, and other maintenance issues that had not been addressed. Staff interviews revealed systemic issues in the facility's housekeeping and maintenance operations. Housekeepers admitted to not dusting daily and only sweeping and mopping floors, while the Lead Housekeeper acknowledged responsibility for cleaning mechanical lifts and blood pressure stands. The sole maintenance worker prioritized electrical and plumbing issues but admitted to ongoing leaks and window problems. The Assistant Administrator and Administrator were aware of some issues but had not taken comprehensive action to resolve them, citing contractor assessments and proposals that had not been fully implemented.
Inadequate Security of Controlled Drugs in Unit 2
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the secure storage of controlled drugs listed in Schedule II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1976. During the Recertification Survey, it was observed that the Narcotic Box in Unit 2 was not properly secured. The outer metal door of the Narcotic Box was locked with a padlock, but it had a wide opening and was not firmly closed, allowing access to multiple packs of Schedule II - V controlled narcotics inside. This issue arose because the primary lock of the outer door was malfunctioning, and a padlock was used as a temporary solution. The Licensed Practical Nurse interviewed was unable to explain why this was problematic, and the Assistant Director of Nursing acknowledged that the primary lock issue had persisted for some time, leading to the use of a padlock.
Failure to Develop Comprehensive Care Plan for UTI
Penalty
Summary
The facility did not ensure that a comprehensive, person-centered care plan (CCP) was developed for Resident #29, who had an active diagnosis of a urinary tract infection (UTI). Despite the resident being cognitively intact and reporting symptoms such as burning upon urination, there was no documented evidence of a CCP related to the UTI. Medical records indicated that the resident was prescribed antibiotics, including Macrobid and Doxycycline, but the care plan did not reflect these treatments or address the infection specifically. Interviews with staff, including a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), and the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed a lack of awareness and documentation regarding a specific CCP for the UTI. The ADON mentioned that antibiotic use is generally covered under a non-specific CCP, and the DON was unsure if a current CCP for the UTI existed. This oversight indicates a failure to develop and implement a targeted care plan for the resident's infection, as required by regulations.
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 1,594 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 21 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 York
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amsterdam Nursing Home Corp (1992) | 0.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Harlem Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation, L L | 1 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| The New Jewish Home, Manhattan | 1.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Northern Manhattan Rehabilitation And Nursing Ctr | 1.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
| Henry J. Carter Skilled Nursing Facility | 1.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for St Marys Center Inc.
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.