Bridgeway Care And Rehab Center At Bridgewater
270 Route 28, Bridgewater, NJ 08807 · For profit - Corporation · 151 certified beds · (908) 722-7022 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Oct 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $7,901 in federal fines (most recent 2023-09-20)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.6% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.1% | 4.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.1% | 12.1% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.0% | 2.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.2% | 8.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.0% | 18.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.9% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 5.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.9% | 15.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.4% | 12.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.8% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.9% | 80.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.4% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.3% | 8.1% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.33 | 2.07 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.95 | 1.11 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
59.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 388 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 47.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 240 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 59.6%CMS range 53.9–65.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.2%CMS range 7.1–12.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 47.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 41.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 49.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 94.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 4.5–9.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 151 beds and averages 142.8 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.99 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.05 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.39 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.49 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.19 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.17 to 0.77 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jdisputed · IIDR2025-10-30 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint #: 2648621 Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 10/23/2025, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their abuse policy to ensure all residents were protected from abuse, when Resident #2 alleged the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) physically abused them, and CNA #1 was taken off the resident's assignment, but remained on that nursing unit assisting other residents as well as having access to Resident #2. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #2) and had the potential to affect all residents. On 10/19/2025 at approximately 6:00 PM, Resident #2 reported to the facility's Nursing Supervisor (NS#1) that CNA #1 pulled their arms and punched them. NS #1 removed CNA #1 from Resident #2's care and reassigned another CNA. CNA #1 remained on that nursing unit providing care to other residents as well as having access to Resident #2 until the end of the shift at 11:00 PM that same evening. On 10/23/2025 at 9:51 AM, an interview was conducted with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2023-09-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Complaint #: NJ00153370 Based on interview, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 09/19/23 and 09/20/23, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) complete daily weights in accordance with a physician's order and b.) follow care plan (CP) interventions for a resident with congestive heart failure (CHF). The resident gained 31 pounds (Lbs.) of fluid in 10 days and was transferred to the hospital in respiratory distress where they were admitted to the intermediate care unit. The deficient practice was identifed for Resident #1, 1 of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care and was evidenced by the following: The surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #1: According to the admission Record, Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to Acute on Chronic Combined Systolic (Congestive) and Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure (a condition where the heart can't pump well enough to give the body a normal blood…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-09 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
C#: 2679544Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 04/08/2026 and 04/09/2026, it was determined that the facility failed to a) honor Resident #2's family representative's (Responsible Party (RP) decision to request and/or refuse laboratory test on the resident and b) failed to follow the facility's policy titled Requesting, Refusing and/or Discontinuing care or Treatment. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for resident right.The evidence was as follows:This deficient practice was evidenced by the following:According to the admission Record Resident #2 had diagnoses which included but were not limited to: unspecified dementia (a decline in mental ability), heart failure (a chronic progressive condition where the heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the body's needs) and major depression (a serious mood disorder causing persistent sadness).According to the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 02/09/2026, Resident #2 had a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMs) score of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-09 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
C#: 2679544Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 04/08/2026 and 04/09/2026, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a resident's (Resident #2) responsible party (RP) a written summary and resolution of the investigation regarding a grievance filed by the RP on 08/29/2025; failed to follow its policy titled Grievance/Complaints, Filing. The deficient practice was identified for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for grievance.This is evidenced by the following:According to the admission Record, Resident #2 had diagnoses which included but were not limited to: unspecified dementia (a decline in mental ability), heart failure (a chronic progressive condition where the heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the body's needs) and major depression (a serious mood disorder causing persistent sadness).According to the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 02/09/2026, Resident #2 had a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMs) score of 9/15, which indicated that Resident #2's cognition was moderately…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous food to prevent food-borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 3/25/25 from 9:58 AM until 10:51 AM, the surveyor observed the following in the kitchen in the presence of the Food Service Director (FSD): 1. In the bay marine refrigerator, on a shelf, there was a chicken salad sandwich labeled with a use-by date of 3/21/25. The FSD stated that the sandwich can be stored for three (3) days after it was prepared and should be discarded by the Use by date. The FSD stated that she would discard the chicken salad sandwich. 2. In the same refrigerator, there was an unlabeled large block of a white, round, solid food item wrapped in white paper on the shelf. The FSD was unable to identify the food item. At that time, the Chef Manager approached the surveyor and FSD and stated that it was a block of cheese that belonged to the kitchen staff. The FSD stated that staff were not supposed to store their personal…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-31 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint #: NJ177346 Based on interview, record review, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to report the results of an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse to the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) within five working days for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #74 and Resident #195) reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 3/25/25 at 10:42 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #74 who was seated in a wheelchair with a transfer pad beneath of him/her and the resident was engaged in a group activity. When interviewed at that time, the Activity Aide stated that the resident frequently called out for the nurse. On 3/25/25 at 1:09 PM, the surveyor reviewed the medical record of Resident #74. A review of the admission Record, and admission summary, revealed that the resident had diagnoses which included, but were not limited to, hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting the right dominant side and anxiety…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Complaint #: NJ00151859 Based on interview, medical records review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 09/19/23 and 09/20/23, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan (CP) for a resident with recurrent urinary tract infections (UTI). The deficient practice was identified for Resident #2, 1 of 3 residents reviewed for CP and was evidenced by the following: The surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #2: According to the admission Record, Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with medical diagnoses which included but were not limited to Metabolic Encephalopathy (a problem in the brain caused by an imbalance in the blood), Chronic Kidney Disease, and UTI. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 11/06/21, revealed that Resident #2 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-20 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Complaint # NJ00164556 Based on interviews, medical records review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on [DATE] and [DATE], it was determined that the facility failed to follow their policies and procedures for a facility-initiated discharge. A resident (Resident #3) exhibited aggressive behaviors and was sent to the hospital for a behavioral evaluation. When the resident was discharged from the hospital, the facility would not permit a return back to the facility. The deficient practice was identified for Resident #3, 1 of 3 residents reviewed for transfer and discharge, and was evidenced by the following: The surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #3: According to the admission Record, Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to Parkinson's Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-21 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to accurately a.) assess a resident for pressure ulcers, and b.) properly code a resident for contractures in the Minimum Data Set (MDS)assessments. This deficient practice was identified in 2 of 27 residents reviewed for MDS, Residents #7 and #181, and was evidenced by the following: a.) Review of the admission Record showed that Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on 11/2021. Medical diagnosis included, but were not limited to Parkinson's disease (neurological disease), kidney disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), heart failure, and depression. Review of the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 11/21/22, indicated that Resident #7 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status of 7, meaning the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Section G, Functional Status showed the resident was a two-person assist for mobility, transfers, and toilet use, and was a one-person physical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-21 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain professional standards of practice by a.) ensuring a physician order was in place to check for proper feeding tube placement and residual stomach contents, and b.) accurately document feeding tube placement and residual stomach content for 1 of 25 residents (Resident #65) reviewed for professional standards of nursing practice. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45. Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as casefinding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was dated properly. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for respiratory care and the evidence was as follows: On 2/7/23 at 10:33 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #1 in his/her room. The resident was in bed and had on an oxygen nasal cannula (a device used to deliver supplemental oxygen) which was attached to an oxygen concentrator with a pre-filled humidifier bottle (a medical device that increases the humidity in oxygen while using supplemental oxygen). Neither the nasal cannula nor the bottle of humidifier solution were dated with the date they were changed. On 2/14/23 at 11:21 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #1 in his/her room resting in a geriatric chair (a large, padded chair that was designed to help seniors with limited mobility). The resident was receiving oxygen therapy via nasal cannula and pre-filled humidifier bottle. Neither the nasal cannula nor the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$7,901 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $7,901 — penalty dated 2023-09-20
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PELLIGRINO, DONALD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 9% | since 10/09/1991 |
| MANEGO, ROSSANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/22/2001 |
| ROYER, SCOTT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in NJ
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New Jersey Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 315182. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-31, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.