Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
A standard survey is most likely before around November 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Hempstead Park Nursing Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not provide adequate nursing staff to meet all residents' needs and failed to have a licensed nurse in charge on every shift, as required.
A deficiency was cited when a resident was not protected from various forms of abuse and neglect, as the facility did not ensure adequate safeguards against physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, or neglect by any individual.
The facility's Facility Assessment did not specify required staffing levels for CNAs and LPNs by unit and shift during weekdays, omitting details for each shift and unit as required. The Administrator confirmed the oversight, noting that the DON responsible for the nursing staffing section was no longer employed.
A cognitively impaired resident was observed engaging in sexual activities with another severely impaired resident, both of whom were unable to consent. The incident occurred despite the facility's policy on abuse prevention and the residents being on 30-minute visual checks. The facility failed to evaluate the residents' capacity to consent, leading to a deficiency in preventing resident-to-resident sexual abuse.
A cognitively impaired resident assessed as an elopement risk left the facility undetected despite being on 15-minute monitoring and equipped with a wander alert device. The resident exited the building past the main security desk, where the alarm was disarmed without verifying the resident's identity or notifying the nursing supervisor. The resident was discovered missing during dinner service, prompting a facility-wide search and notification process.
Insufficient Nursing Staff and Lack of Licensed Nurse Coverage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide enough nursing staff each day to meet the needs of every resident and did not ensure that a licensed nurse was in charge on each shift. This deficiency was identified through observations and review of staffing patterns, which showed that staffing levels were insufficient to meet resident care needs and that there were shifts without a licensed nurse in charge. These findings indicate that the facility did not comply with requirements for daily nursing staff coverage and supervision by a licensed nurse on all shifts.
Failure to Protect Residents from Abuse and Neglect
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified regarding the facility's failure to protect each resident from all types of abuse, including physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by any individual. The report documents that residents were not adequately safeguarded from these forms of mistreatment, indicating lapses in the facility's protective measures and oversight.
Facility Assessment Lacked Specific Staffing Needs by Unit and Shift
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that its Facility Assessment included specific staffing needs for each resident unit and each shift, as required. During the recertification survey, it was found that the Facility Assessment, last reviewed in June 2025, did not indicate the required number of Certified Nursing Aides for each unit and each shift (7:00 AM-3:00 PM, 3:00 PM-11:00 PM, and 11:00 PM-7:00 AM) on weekdays. Additionally, the assessment did not specify the staffing needs for Licensed Practical Nurses for each unit for the 3:00 PM-11:00 PM and 11:00 PM-7:00 AM shifts during the weekdays. Interviews with the Administrator revealed that both the Administrator and the Director of Nursing Services (DON) were involved in developing and reviewing the Facility Assessment, with the DON responsible for the nursing staffing portion. The Administrator acknowledged that the Facility Assessment should have clearly indicated specific nursing staffing needs by resident units for each shift and stated that the omission was an oversight. The DON responsible for this section was no longer employed at the facility at the time of the survey.
Failure to Prevent Resident-to-Resident Sexual Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate supervision and implementation of interventions to prevent resident-to-resident sexual abuse. Specifically, a cognitively impaired resident with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 was observed engaging in sexual activities with another resident who had a BIMS score of 0, indicating severe impairment for decision-making. The incident occurred behind closed doors, where a Certified Nurse's Aide (CNA) witnessed the cognitively impaired resident performing oral sex on the severely impaired resident. Both residents were known to have impaired cognition and were on 30-minute visual checks due to their behaviors. The facility's policy on abuse prevention states that residents have the right to be free from abuse, including non-consensual sexual contact. Despite this, the facility did not adequately evaluate the residents' capacity to consent to sexual activity, as both residents were confused and unable to consent. The incident was reported to the Nursing Supervisor, and both residents were placed on one-to-one supervision. The Director of Nursing and the Administrator acknowledged that both residents had impaired cognition and were not capable of consenting to sexual activities.
Plan Of Correction
Plan of Correction: Approved January 31, 2025 Hempstead Park Nursing Home P(NAME) F689 1. Immediate Correction: 1) On 2/03/2025 the DNS reviewed plan of care for Resident # 1 to ensure that all measures were in place to provide adequate supervision to prevent any future incidents of sexual abuse. The P(NAME) included redirecting residents to high visibility areas, day room monitoring, re-direction of peers from entering room, ensuring that room door is always kept open, staff education on special care needs, monitoring and reporting of inappropriate sexual behaviors, psychological services, and regular psychiatric evaluations. 2) On 2/03/2025 the DNS reviewed plan of care for Resident # 2 to ensure that all measures were in place to provide adequate supervision to prevent any future incidents of sexual abuse. The P(NAME) included redirecting residents to high visibility areas, day room monitoring, re-direction of peers from entering female rooms, ensuring that room door is always kept open, staff education on special care needs, monitoring and reporting of inappropriate sexual behaviors, Resident 1 to remain on psychological service and regular psychiatric evaluations for both residents. II. Identification of Others: 1) The facility respectfully states that all residents with impaired cognition could potentially be at risk for sexual abuse. 2) A list of all residents that triggered for behaviors of wandering and inappropriate behaviors towards others was generated from MDS data submitted in the last 90 days. 3) A list of all residents that display or displayed inappropriate sexual behaviors was obtained from RN Unit Manager for each floor. 4) The identified residents were audited to ensure that a plan of care was in place to provide adequate supervision to prevent incidents of sexual abuse: to include enhanced monitoring, day room supervision, staff education, and awareness. III. Systemic Changes: 1) The DNS and ADMIN reviewed the Policy and Procedure for Accident and Incidents, and found same to be in compliance. 2) The DNS and ADMIN reviewed the Policy and Procedure on Abuse and found same to be in compliance. 3) All Nursing Staff will receive In-service Education by the In-service Coordinator on the need for adequate supervision and interventions to prevent resident to resident sexual abuse. Highlights of the Lesson Plan include: - The definition of sexual abuse - The responsibility to supervise and safeguard residents with behaviors in order to prevent abuse - Resident behaviors that indicate a sexual preoccupation - Residents that have a history of sexually inappropriate behaviors - Residents that display signs of affection towards peers - The responsibility of staff to communicate any of the above behaviors to the Charge Nurse - The responsibility of the IDT to review these behaviors and the interventions that will provide adequate supervision and safeguarding to prevent sexual abuse - The importance of re-directing residents that wander to a common area and the need to engage them in activities - The need to ensure that resident room doors are open unless otherwise care planned for - The importance of having cognitively impaired residents meet in a common area rather than in their rooms - The responsibility of the IDT to identify residents that have a friendship with each other and implement a plan of care for this. - The process involved in care planning when 2 residents are able to consent to sexual intimacy IV. Quality Assurance: 1) The DNS developed 2 audit tools to monitor the facility’s compliance with ensuring that each resident displaying wandering, sexually preoccupied behaviors, and/or displaying fondness for a peer have a plan of care in place to provide adequate supervision to safeguard them from sexual abuse and that all staff are aware of behaviors and actions to take in order to safeguard and supervise residents that may be at risk for sexual abuse. 2) Audits will be done by RNs weekly x 4 weeks on all residents that have these behaviors documented in the progress notes followed by monthly x 5 months. 3) Audits will be done by RNs weekly on 6 random nursing staff members weekly on safeguarding and monitoring residents to prevent sexual abuse followed by 6 random nursing staff members monthly x 5 months. 4) Findings from the audits that require corrective actions will immediately be rectified and brought to the Morning QA Meeting for review. 5) Findings will be reviewed during the Quarterly QA Meeting to ensure sustainability. IV. Person Responsible for this FTag: DNS
Failure to Prevent Elopement of Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident identified as an elopement risk received adequate supervision to prevent elopement. Resident #1, who was cognitively impaired and assessed as an elopement risk, was placed on 15-minute monitoring and equipped with a wander alert device. Despite these measures, Resident #1 was able to leave the facility undetected on 02/19/2024 and was returned by relatives and local police the following day. The visual monitoring sheet documented that Resident #1 was last seen on the unit at 4:45 PM, but there were no further entries after that time. Video surveillance revealed that Resident #1 exited the building at 4:54 PM, passing the main security desk where the security guard disarmed the alarm without verifying the resident's identity or notifying the nursing supervisor. The resident was discovered missing at 6:15 PM when the dinner tray was served, and a facility-wide search and notification process was initiated, including calling the local police and the resident's representative. Interviews with staff indicated that the visual checks were not completed due to a busy unit, and the security guard was unaware of the resident's status and did not follow proper protocol when the alarm sounded. The Director of Nursing and the former Facility Administrator confirmed that there was no mechanism in place to identify if a resident was off the unit other than staff observation, and the security guard should have notified the supervisor immediately when the alarm sounded. The Maintenance Director stated that the alarm sounds but does not impede the door from opening or closing, and there is no mechanism on the elevator to detect a wander guard. The Medical Director stated that residents on 15-minute monitoring should be visualized by staff, but they did not know how Resident #1 was able to get out.
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 688 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 11 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 Hempstead
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Townhouse Center For Rehabilitation & Nursing | 0.3 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Mayfair Care Center | 1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Nassau Rehabilitation & Nursing Center | 1.2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| A Holly Patterson Extended Care Facility | 1.3 mi | — | 18 | 0 |
| Fulton Commons Care Center Inc | 1.6 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Hempstead Park Nursing Home.
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 August 2026) and official state health department websites.