Queen Of Peace Residence
Queens Village, New York · CCN 335606
8 surveys since 2010, 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
- 21
- Surveys
- 8
- Harm or worse
- 0
- Immediate jeopardy
- 0
No finding on record has been cited at harm level or above.
Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.
The facility
- Certified beds
- 53
- Ownership
- Non profit - Corporation
- Chain
- LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR
- County
- Queens
- Medicare-certified since
- 1977
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 5
- Health inspection
- 4
- Staffing
- 5
- Quality measures
- 2
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=8, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Nov 24, 2025
350 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 7.17 | 4.69 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 2.04 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 28.6% | 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
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G— | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D450.0% | E225.0% | F112.5% |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C112.5% |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at Queen Of Peace Residence, in the surveyor’s own words.
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF880Nov 22, 2021
Based on record review and staff interview during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure infection prevention control practices were maintained to help prevent the spread, development, and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, the facility was missing a Legionella sampling plan based on the facility's risk assessment. Finding is: Record review revealed the Facility Risk Assessment lacked a Legionella sampling plan that identified specific locations where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens (e.g., Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Burkholderia, Stenotrophomonas, nontuberculous mycobacteria, and fungi) could grow and spread in the facility water system. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF730Nov 24, 2025
Based on record review and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure a performance review of every nurse's aide was conducted at least once every 12 months and that regular in-service education was provided based on the outcome of these reviews. This was evident for all Certified Nursing Assistants reviewed for nurse aides' training requirements.The findings are:The facility did not provide a policy and procedure regarding certified nursing aides yearly performance reviewsOn 09/26/2025, Certified Nursing Assistants records were reviewed, and there was no documented evidence a performance review was conducted for any of the Certified Nursing Assistants.On 09/26/2025 at 4:42 PM, the Director of Nursing was interviewed and stated the facility… […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF947Nov 24, 2025
Based on record review and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that training requirements were met. This was evident for all certified nurse's aides. Specifically, there was no documented evidence certified nurse aides received no less than 12 hours per year of in-service training.The findings are:The facility did not provide a policy and procedure on nurse's aide training.On 09/26/2025 certified nurse's aides records were reviewed. There were no inservice records or lesson plans provided that certified nurse's aides received 12 hours in-service education in the past year. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF685Nov 24, 2025
Based on observations, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure residents were provided the proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision abilities. This was evident for 1 (Resident #16) of 1 resident reviewed for Communication-Sensory, out of a sample of 16 residents. Specifically, there was no documented evidence a follow up Ophthalmology consult was done for Resident #16 who had high intraocular pressure. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF582Jun 20, 2023
Based on interviews and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/13/23 to 6/20/23, the facility did not ensure a resident or their designated representative was provided with a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (ABN) at the termination of Medicare Part A benefits. This was evident for 2 (Residents # 12 and # 21) of 2 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Notification of a total sample of 13 residents. Specifically, 1) Resident #12 and their designated representative were not provided with a SNFABN once Resident #12 was terminated from skilled rehabilitation services and remained in the facility, and 2) Resident #21 and their designated representative were not provided with a SNFABN once Resident #21 was terminated from skilled… […]
Read 20 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 20 of 21 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Nov 24, 2025Standard4 findings
- Jun 20, 2023Standard3 findings
- Nov 22, 2021Standard1 finding
- Mar 16, 2018Standard2 findings
- Nov 20, 2015Standard1 finding
- Jan 7, 2014—1 finding
- Jan 31, 2012—2 findings
- Nov 19, 2010—7 findings
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