Deficiency Index

Mount Sinai South Nassau T C U

Oceanside, New York · CCN 335871

6 surveys since 2015, and no finding has been recorded at harm level.

Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.

Citations on record
12
Surveys
6
Harm or worse
0
Immediate jeopardy
0
The record, 2015–2025
’15’20’25
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Harm or worseNone

No finding on record has been cited at harm level or above.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file3/6

Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.

The facility

Certified beds
20
Ownership
Non profit - Corporation
Chain
Independent
County
Nassau
Medicare-certified since
2014

CMS ratings

Overall
5
Health inspection
5
Staffing
5
Quality measures
4

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=5, floor 20).

Last survey on record

Dec 24, 2025

320 days ago.

Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.

Staffing

MeasureThis facilityPeer median
Nurse hours per resident day6.144.69
Registered-nurse hours per resident day4.06—
Annual nurse turnover40.7%36.0%

As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.

Enforcement

No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.

Severity of recent findings

Citations by CMS scope and severity. Rows are harm level, columns are how widespread the finding was.
SeverityIsolatedPatternWidespread
Immediate jeopardyJ—K—L—
Actual harmG—H—I—
No harm, potential for more than minimalD480.0%E—F—
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C120.0%
CMS’s current file: 5 of the 12 citations on record.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Mount Sinai South Nassau T C U, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF550Oct 22, 2024

    Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 10/17/2024 and completed on 10/22/2024, the facility did not ensure that each resident was treated with respect and dignity in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of quality of life. This was identified for one (Resident #64) of 10 sampled residents. Specifically, Nurse Practitioner # 1 was observed on 10/17/2024 walking into Resident # 64's room without knocking on the resident's door. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF655Oct 22, 2024

    Based on observations, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 10/17/2024 and completed on 10/22/2024 the facility did not ensure that each resident had a Baseline Care Plan that included instructions to provide effective person-centered care that meets professional standards. This was identified for one (Resident #165) of one resident reviewed for skin conditions. Specifically, Resident #165 was assessed as at risk for falls and was placed on tele-sitter remote visual monitoring using a camera in the resident's room. The resident's care plan interventions did not include the tele-sitter remote visual monitoring. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF656Jun 16, 2023

    Based on observation, record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 6/14/2023 and completed on 6/16/2023 the facility did not ensure that a person-centered care plan for each resident was developed and implemented that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs. This was identified for one (Resident #117) of one resident reviewed for hydration. Specifically, on 6/14/2023 Resident #117 was administered Packed Red Blood Cells (PRBC). There was no documented evidence in the medical record of a Care Plan related to blood transfusion that included goals and interventions to monitor the resident during and after the blood transfusion. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF842Jun 16, 2023

    Based on observation, record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 6/14/2023 and completed on 6/16/2023, the facility did not ensure that resident records were complete and accurately documented in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was identified for one (Resident #69) of one resident reviewed for Skin Condition. Specifically, Resident #69 was admitted to the facility with a left dorsal (back) hand and forearm discoloration, however, there was no documented evidence of the identified left-hand and forearm discolorations in the medical record. The finding is: Resident #69 was admitted with diagnoses that included Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, and Heart Failure. […]

  • No harm, potential for minimal, widespreadF868Dec 24, 2025

    Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification Survey initiated on 12/22/2025 and completed on 12/24/2025, the facility did not ensure it maintained a quality assessment and assurance committee that included the Infection Preventionist (IP) as a member of the committee. Specifically, the Infection Preventionist did not participate and report on the Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) and on incidents (for example health care associated infections) regularly to the Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement committee meetings that were held from 03/31/2025 through 09/11/2025.The finding is:The facility's policy titled Quality Management/Performance Improvement dated 09/2025 documented that all staff participates in the performance improvement process. […]

Read all 12 findings in full →

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Dec 24, 2025Standard1 finding
  • Oct 22, 2024Standard2 findings
  • Jun 16, 2023Standard2 findings
  • Apr 26, 2019Standard5 findings
  • Oct 14, 2016Standard1 finding
  • Nov 17, 2015Standard1 finding

Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.

Comparable facilities

The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.

Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction