Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities · New York

Care at Home

Great Neck, NY · ~354 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
8.9
Avg TCR
3.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Care at Home runs at 236% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities workplace, earning a grade F.

Care at Home: 8.9 TCR = 236% of Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS 3.8 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Care at Home safety composite

Care at Home scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 65% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 37%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

D

50/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
D 8.95 per 100 workers

Safer than 37% of industry peers

DART rate
C 1.33 per 100 workers

Safer than 65% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−1.6

2016→2023

Care at Home injury rate improved

Care at Home's TCR fell 1.6 from 3.5 in 2016 to 2.0 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2019 at 35.5 TCR. In 2023, DART was 0.15× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=3.5 · 2017=3.6 · 2019=35.5 · 2020=7.5 · 2021=9.3 · 2022=1.2 · 2023=2.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 623312 · Great Neck, NY ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 8.9 · 236% of ind

  • DART 1.3 DART
  • RANK #197/283
  • PHOTO Homme Heights
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 33 inj
  • SIZE ~354 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Homme Heights (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · New York employers → · Look up another →

Care at Home in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Care at Home averages 8.9 TCR (236% of the Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Care at Home TCR series: 2016=3.5 · 2017=3.6 · 2019=35.5 · 2020=7.5 · 2021=9.3 · 2022=1.2 · 2023=2 · BLS 3.8

Where Care at Home falls in its industry

6,510 Assisted-living facilities wit establishments

Safer than 37% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 7.2.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New York alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #197 safest of 283 Assisted-living facilities wit employers in New York.

Care at Home (354 employees, TCR 8.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0100200300400 0510152025 Average employees Total Case Rate Care at Home
Care at Home (354 employees, TCR 8.9) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 49 employees and a TCR of 7.2

Care at Home has more employees than the Assisted-living facilities without on-si median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 7.2. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2023 2.0 1.3 3 0 0
2022 1.2 1.2 2 0 0
2021 9.3 8.7 6 10 0
2020 7.5 5.3 5 9 0
2019 35.5 23.7 3 0 0
2017 3.6 0.6 6 0 0
2016 3.5 2.2 8 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

623312 · NY · Great Neck

6,510 Assisted-living facilities without on-site nursing care facilities employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 21,008 rated employers in New York with headcount on file · 45 employers in Great Neck, NY · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Homme Heights 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Brookdale Lake Shore Drive 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR WINDSOR 8.9 TCR
NAICS-TCR Maple Senior Living of Lamar 8.9 TCR
STATE-SIZE 72245 354 FTE
STATE-SIZE St. Peter's Health Partner/ St. Peter's Community Hospice 354 FTE
STATE-SIZE Auxiliary Services SUNY Oswego Inc 354 FTE
STATE-SIZE Telephonics 815 Farmingdale 355 FTE
CITY-NEAR Great Neck Public Schools 1,524 FTE
CITY-NEAR The Grand Rehabilitation and Nursing at Great Neck 281 FTE
CITY-NEAR 865 Northern Blvd 268 FTE
CITY-NEAR TC Electric 259 FTE
NAT-TCR Walters Brothers Lumber Manufacturing, Inc. - Holcombe 8.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Hunter Super Techs 8.9 TCR
NAT-TCR Franklin Building Supply - Jerome Truss Plant 8.9 TCR
NAT-TCR East Coast Distribution Center - Jonestown, PA 8.9 TCR
NAT-SIZE VA004 354 FTE
NAT-SIZE Education 354 FTE
NAT-SIZE MS Companies Georgetown Kentucky 354 FTE
NAT-SIZE Michigan 354 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.