New YorkOssining

Bethel Nursing Home Company INC

17 Narragansett Avenue, Ossining, NY 10562 · Westchester County · 43 certified beds · avg 35 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1976

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.14
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (25)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 18, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Jun 18, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Jun 18, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Mar 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Mar 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Mar 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Mar 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · from a complaint
Mar 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Mar 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds.
Mar 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Mar 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Mar 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Mar 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Sep 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Aug 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Aug 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · from a complaint
Aug 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · from a complaint
Aug 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Aug 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Aug 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Aug 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Aug 8, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint
Jul 27, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 27, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 11).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202120D
202390D
2025110E
202630D

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityNew York avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.143.583.95top 20% in New York; top 34% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.920.680.69top 14% in New York; top 19% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.013.133.50top 11% in New York; top 23% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.670.480.48top 18% in New York; top 18% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)25.040.345.8top 14% in New York; top 7% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)37.539.842.9top 49% in New York; top 42% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.53, RN 0.79, weekend 3.41. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Alexander, JenniferIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2014
Goldstein, BethIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/22/2011
Markopoulos, AnastasiosIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2014
Markopoulos, AnastasiosIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE07/29/2004
Markopoulos, AnastasiosIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/23/2004
The Bethel Methodist HomeOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/17/1987

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Cedar Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center1.1 miOssining, NY★★☆☆☆2/5
Sunshine Children's Home and Rehab Center1.5 miOssining, NY★★★★★5/5
Briarcliff Manor Center for Rehab and Nursing Care3.3 miBriarcliff Manor, NY★☆☆☆☆2/5
Sky View Rehabilitation & Health Care Center L L C4.4 miCroton on Hudson, NY★★★★☆3/5
Tolstoy Foundation Rehabilitation and Nrsg Center5.6 miValley Cottage, NY★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Springvale Nursing & Rehabilitation Center5.8 miCroton on Hudson, NY★★★☆☆2/5
Northern Riverview Health Care, INC6.3 miHaverstraw, NY★★☆☆☆1/5
Nyack Ridge Rehabilitation and Nursing Center6.4 miValley Cottage, NY★☆☆☆☆1/5
Tarrytown Hall Care Center6.5 miTarrytown, NY★★★☆☆3/5
New York State Veterans Home at Montrose6.6 miMontrose, NY★★☆☆☆1/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Ossining →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 335490.