How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Archcare at Providence Rest
3304 Waterbury Avenue, Bronx, NY 10465 (opens Google Maps) · Bronx County · (718) 931-3000· 200 certified beds · avg 189 residents/day · certified since Dec 1, 1976 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: ARCHCARE (7 facilities, chain avg rating 4.0★)
5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 7, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Mar 7, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.01
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 7, 2025 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 7, 2025 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Apr 21, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 17 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689
The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. F-0725
The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. F-0577
View all 17 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 7, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Feb 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| Jan 26, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Jan 26, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Jan 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Jan 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Jan 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Jan 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Jan 26, 2023 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Jan 13, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Jan 13, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Jan 13, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 7 | 1 | G ▲ |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityNew York averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.01
New York average: 3.58
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.83
New York average: 0.68
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.74
New York average: 3.13
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | New York avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.01 | 3.58 | 3.95 | bottom 26% in New York; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.83 | 0.68 | 0.69 | top 20% in New York; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.74 | 3.13 | 3.50 | bottom 33% in New York; bottom 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.71 | 0.48 | 0.48 | top 15% in New York; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 29.4 | 40.3 | 45.8 | top 26% in New York; top 13% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 42.6 | 39.8 | 42.9 | bottom 40% in New York; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.10, RN 0.85, weekend 2.82.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.10 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Archcare at Providence Rest. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alberto, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Augustine, Gemma | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Biscotti, Richard | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/03/2021 |
| Biscotti, Richard | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/06/2025 |
| Bujno, Stephen | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Cahill, John | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Catholic Health Care Systems | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/21/2025 |
| Catholic Health Care Systems | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/21/2025 |
| Cortes, Tara | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Covone, Annmarie | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2015 |
| Covone, Annmarie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/21/2025 |
| Fahey, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Feldmann, Eric | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Gleason, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/31/1999 |
| Gray, Karen | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Johnson, Clarion | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Kasergrande, Leslie | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Kelleher, Rory | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Lamorte, Joseph | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
| Larue, Scott | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2024 |
Showing 20 of 33 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 13 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Archcare — 7 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Carmel Richmond Healthcare and Rehabilitation Cent — Staten Island, NY · overall 5/5
- Ferncliff Nursing Home Co INC — Rhinebeck, NY · overall 2/5abuse
- Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home Co INC — New York, NY · overall 5/5
- St Vincent Depaul Residence — Bronx, NY · overall 3/5
- Terence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center — New York, NY · overall 4/5
- Archcare at Eger Health Care and Rehabilitation Ce — Staten Island, NY · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "Where do you post your latest state inspection results and the ombudsman's contact information?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the New York midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 29% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 33 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 270 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Throgs Neck Rehabilitation & Nursing Center | 1.0 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Rebekah Rehabilitation and Extended Care Center | 1.6 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Gold Crest Care Center | 1.7 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Williamsbridge Center for Rehabilitation and Nrsg | 1.7 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Kings Harbor Multicare Cente | 1.8 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| East Haven Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 2.0 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Morris Park Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 2.3 mi | Bronx, NY | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Eastchester Rehabilitation and Health Care Center | 2.3 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Bronx Center for Rehabilitation & Health Care | 2.3 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Grand Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 2.4 mi | Bronx, NY | —/5 | abuseSFF | |
| Morningside Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 2.5 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Fac | 2.5 mi | Bronx, NY | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Bronx, NY — 44 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Bainbridge Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Bronx, NY · overall 5/5
- Beth Abraham Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing — Bronx, NY · overall 3/5
- Bronx Gardens Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Bronx, NY · overall 3/5
- Bronx Park Rehabilitation & Nursing Center — Bronx, NY · overall 4/5
- Bronxcare Special Care Center — Bronx, NY · overall 4/5
- Casa Promesa — Bronx, NY · overall 3/5
- Concourse Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, INC — Bronx, NY · overall 2/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 335583.