Complete Care At Cedar Grove
536 Ridge Road, Cedar Grove, NJ 07009 · For profit - Corporation · 190 certified beds · (973) 239-9300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (67%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 held steady at 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 | 4.8% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.0% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.3% | 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 | 0.5% | 2.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.9% | 8.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.2% | 18.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.3% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.2% | 15.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.3% | 12.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 80.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.2% | 24.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.8% | 8.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.05 | 2.07 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.44 | 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.
38.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 96 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 84.6% 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 78 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 21% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 38.4%CMS range 28.1–50.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.9%CMS range 8.8–15.7 | 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 | 84.6% | 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 | 70.5% | 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 | 80.8% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.9% | 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 | 0.9% | 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 | 9.5%CMS range 5.8–14.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.40 | 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 190 beds and averages 164.0 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 26 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 3.55 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.38 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.20 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 3.41 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.60 on weekdays — 5% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.39 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 67% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-31 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentations on 3/30/26 and 3/31/26, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation of completion of Activities of Daily Living (ADL) tasks of getting residents out of bed and providing turning and repositioning for dependent residents for the time period of of September 2025 through December 2025. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 5 residents, Resident #1, that were reviewed for ADL documentation as follows: A review of Resident #1's admission Record (AR), an admission record summary, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to severe protein-calorie malnutrition, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, dysphagia, pressure ulcer of sacral region-stage 4, gastrostomy status, functional quadriplegia, iron deficiency anemia, and generalized muscle weakness. A review of the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive assessment tool, dated 03/03/2026, showed that Resident #1's Brief Interview for…
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 · Ecited before2024-11-22 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) ensure respiratory tubing cannula was stored in accordance with infection control measures for 1 of 4 residents, (Resident #55) and b.) administer oxygen therapy according to the physician's order for 3 of 4 residents, Resident #28, #160 and #273). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 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 case-finding, 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.…
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 · D2024-11-22 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the call bell within reach of residents. This deficient practice was identified for 3 of 35 residents reviewed for the accommodation of needs (Resident #108, #128, and #116), and was evidenced by the following: 1. On 11/12/24 at 11:55 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #108 in bed on a specialty mattress with a contracture to their right hand. The surveyor observed the resident's call bell (a bell used to summon staff for assistance) was affixed to the right upper enabler and dangling down towards the floor, not within his/her reach. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #108. A review of the resident's admission Record reflected that Resident #108 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to hemiplegia (mild or partial weakness or loss of strength on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (severe or complete loss of strength or…
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 · D2024-11-22 · 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 nursing practice for not following physician orders for medications with parameters for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident # 148). The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 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 licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of casefinding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. The surveyor reviewed the medical records for Resident #148 that revealed the following: According to the Order Summary Report Resident # 148 had an order dated 8/16/24 for Entresto (a medication to treat high blood pressure) 24-26 MG, give 1…
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 · D2024-11-22 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 provide pharmaceutical services in accordance with professional standards to assure that a.) intravenous bags were stored in a tamper and contaminant resistant packaging, b) accurate dispensing and administration of pain medication c.) a narcotic medication that was ordered by the physician was available for administration. The deficient practices were identified for one (1) of two (2) medication rooms and two (2) of four (4) medication carts inspected during the medication storage and observation and was evidenced as follows: 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 case finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and…
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 · D2024-11-22 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 ensure that all medications were administered without error of 5% or more. During the medication observation conducted on 11/14/24, the surveyor observed four (4) nurses administer medications to four (4) residents. There were 27 opportunities, and two errors were observed which resulted in a medication error rate of 7.41%. This deficient practice was identified for one (1) of three (3) residents, that was administered by one (1) of three (3) nurses. and was evidenced by the following: On 11/14/23 at 9:01 AM, the surveyor observed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) prepare medications for Resident #64. The medications included the following: - Metformin 500 milligram (mg), give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Give with food. The order was started on 3/13/23. -Potassium Chloride Extended Release 20 milliequivalent (mEq), 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for supplement. Give with food. The order was started on of 1/3/23. At 9:06 AM, the LPN confirmed she…
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 · F2023-08-18 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — widespreadEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, review of the facility's meal schedule, and facility policy review, the time span between the residents' evening meal and the following breakfast meal exceeded 14 hours and the time span between these two meals was not approved by five of five residents (Resident (R) 47, R49, R53, R61, and R118) who regularly attended the monthly resident council meetings and were interviewed regarding the facility's meal schedule. This failure had the potential to affect 164 residents who received meals from the facility's kitchen. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's undated meal schedule that was on the Mealtime Delivery Log revealed, the following Projected Arrival Time when each hallway was scheduled to receive their dinner and breakfast meals: First floor East North Hallway: Dinner 5:10 PM and Breakfast 7:25 AM. A total of 14 hours and 15 minutes were scheduled between the resident evening meal and the following breakfast meal. First floor East South Hallway: Dinner 5:25 PM and Breakfast 7:40 AM. A total of 14 hours and 15 minutes were scheduled…
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 · F2023-08-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure coffee pitchers and the juice machine's dispenser nozzle were dry when stored, kitchen ceiling tiles were free of mold, kitchen storage racks were clean and kitchen sanitizing buckets contained adequate quaternary ammonia to sanitize kitchen equipment and food preparation surfaces. This failure had the potential to affect 164 residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen. Findings included: 1. Observation during the initial kitchen inspection on 08/14/23 from 9:00 AM to 9:40 AM, with Director of Food Services (DFS) present, revealed the following: a. Four coffee pitchers with their lids tightly closed were stored wet with accumulated water in each pitcher. b. Eight kitchen ceiling tiles, located above the kitchen's large coffee maker, had black mold growth on them. c. The juice machine's dispensing nozzle was stored in a small container of unclean water. The dispensing nozzle was in direct contact with the unclean water. d. Observation of the DFS using test paper to check…
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 · F2023-08-18 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and review of facility documentation, the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to hold quarterly meetings for one of four QAPI meetings conducted. This failure had the potential to affect all 170 residents who currently live in the facility. Findings include: Review of the facility QAPI sign-in log dated 12/14/22 was for the third quarter of 2022 that included July 2022, August 2022, and September 2022. Review of the facility's QAPI sign-in log dated 01/25/23 was for the fourth quarter of 2022 that included October 2022, November 2022, and December 2022. Review of the facility's QAPI sign-in log dated 04/26/23 was for the first quarter of 2023 that included January 2023, February 2023, and March 2023. Review of the facility's QAPI sign-in log dated 07/26/23 was for the second quarter of 2023 that included April 2023, May 2023, and June 2023. Review of the facility's undated document titled, Complete Care at Cedar Grove QAPI Plan, revealed, .2. Governance and Leadership: The QAPI Plan will be Organized and Orchestrated by…
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 · E2023-08-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, review of Resident Council minutes, and facility policy review, the facility failed to serve food that was palatable to three of five residents (Resident (R) 49, R53, and R61) reviewed for food palatability. This failure had the potential to affect all 164 residents who consumed food prepared from the facility's kitchen. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident Council meeting minutes dated 06/22/23, provided by the facility, revealed, For certain meals, the bread can get soggy when it is served with certain side dishes. Review of the Resident Council meeting minutes dated 03/23/23 revealed, Residents feel the drinks and juices are sometimes not cold enough or partially frozen. At times, the food served on the units is not hot enough. The hot tea and coffee aren't always hot enough by the time the residents get it on the units. Review of the Resident Council meeting minutes dated 05/25/23 revealed, The French fries are not served warm. 2. Review of R49's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/15/23,…
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.
Show the remaining 9 citations
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-18 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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, the facility failed to ensure one out of 39 sampled residents (Resident (R) 117). The facility staff failed to promote choices regarding R117 being able to stay in her room instead of going to the activity room. R117 was dissatisfied with having to go to the activity room instead of staying in her room. Findings include: Review of R117's undated Face Sheet under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R117 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/20/23 in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of five out of 15, which indicated resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS indicated that it was somewhat important for R117 to be able to choose an important activity. R117 required extensive assistance with locomotion on unit of one person. Review of R177's Care Plan dated 02/16/23, in the EMR under…
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 · D2023-08-18 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of the transfer to the hospital for one of four residents (Resident (R) 8) reviewed for hospital transfers, out of a total sample of 39 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Nursing Home Monthly Ombudsman Notification Policy, dated 01/02/23, revealed, Policy Statement: This policy outlines the monthly notification process for engaging the New Jersey (NJ) Ombudsman Program in nursing homes. This policy aims to establish a systematic procedure for notifying the NJ Ombudsman Program about resident discharges monthly to the state . Notification Submission: . b. The compiled report shall include information such as the resident's name, date, type, and location of the transfer. Review of R8's undated admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of R8's EMR…
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 · D2023-08-18 · 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 record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the residents' medication status for two of two (Resident (R) 71 and R89) in a total sample of 39 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, MDS Completion and Submission Timeframes, dated 1/2023 revealed, Our facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with current federal and state submission timeframes. The policy failed to address the accuracy of the assessment. Review of R71's undated admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and with diagnoses which included encephalopathy, gastrostomy status, dysphagia, unspecified dementia, acute kidney failure. Review of the EMR admission MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/08/23, indicated R71 used insulin since admission. Review of R71's physician orders found in…
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 · D2023-08-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to develop a care plan for one of five residents (Resident (R) 89) reviewed for unnecessary medications regarding the resident's daily use of an antipsychotic medication. Findings include: Review of R89's undated admission Record located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of psychosis. Review of R89's Physician Orders located in the Orders tab of the EMR revealed an order for a 50-milligram (mg) tablet of quetiapine fumarate (an antipsychotic medication) to be administered at bedtime for psychosis. This order was initiated on 07/27/23. Review of R89's July 2023 and August 2023 monthly Medication Administration Records (MAR) located in the Orders tab of the EMR revealed R89 received quetiapine fumarate every night at bedtime from 07/27/23 to 08/16/23. Review of R89's Care Plan located in the Care Plan tab of the EMR revealed a focus which indicated,…
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 · D2023-08-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff provided the removal of facial hair for one of one dependent residents (Resident (R) 65) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) in a total sample of 39 residents. Findings include: Observation on 08/14/23 at 10:06 AM, on 08/15/23 at 11:00 AM, and on 08/16/23 at 11:02 AM revealed the appearance of black facial hair above R65's top lip and gray facial hair on her chin. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) Diagnosis tab revealed diagnoses for R65 that included Alzheimer's disease and anxiety disorder. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/10/23, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 out of 15 indicating R65 was severely impaired cognitively. Further review of the MDS revealed R65 required extensive one person assistance for all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Interview on 08/15/23 at 11:09 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 6 stated that she could not shave R65's…
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 · D2023-08-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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, record review and policy review, the facility failed to revise the care plan implement fall interventions to prevent future injuries from a fall for one resident (Resident (R) 9) out of two residents reviewed for falls from a total sample of 39 residents. The failure to update the care plan and implement revised fall interventions for a resident with a history of falls could result in serious injury. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy and procedure Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, revised March 2018 and updated January 2023, indicated . the staff, with the input of the attending physician, will implement a resident-centered fall prevention plan to reduce the specific risk factor(s) of falls for each resident at risk or with a history of falls staff will monitor and document each resident's response to interventions intended to reduce falling or the risks of falling .if interventions have been successful in preventing falling, staff will continue the interventions .…
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 · Dcited before2023-08-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain the cleanliness of the nebulizer mouthpiece when not in use for one of 39 residents in the survey sampled (Resident (R) 30. This deficient practice increases the risk of infection for a resident requiring nebulizer therapy. Findings include: Review of R30's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) undated Face Sheet located under the Profile tab, indicated R30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of R30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) located in R30's EMR under the MDS tab, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/07/23, revealed a score of 15 of 15 which indicated R30 was cognitively intact. Review of R30's Physician Orders located in R30's EMR under the Orders tab, revealed orders dated 08/04/2023 Ipratropium Bromide 0.5 %/Albuterol solution 3mg by mouth per nebulizer treatment every four hours. During an observation and interview with Unit…
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 · D2023-08-18 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure prescribed medications were available for administration for one of eight residents (Resident (R) 49) whose drug regimen was reviewed. The facility failed to have R49's Xifaxan medication available to administer as prescribed which caused the resident to not to feel well on the days it was not administered. Findings include: . Review of R49's undated admission Record located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of cirrhosis of the liver with ascites. Review of R49's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/15/23, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, indicated R49 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated R49 had a diagnosis of cirrhosis. Review of R49's current Physician Orders located in 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.
- No harm found · B2025-04-28 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY NJ00183439 Based on observation, record review and interview on 04/28/25, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean and homelike physical environment for their residents. This deficient practice was identified in 2 of 4 bedrooms observed and was evidenced by the following: During tour on 4/28/25 at 10:12 a.m., the surveyor entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and noted black dried substance behind dresser under wallpaper. During tour on 4/28/25 at 10:14 a.m., the surveyor entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and noted black dried substance behind dresser under wallpaper. During tour on 4/28/25 at 11:21 a.m. with the Director of Maintenance and the Maintenance staff, both confirmed the black dried substance on the walls behind the wallpaper behind the dressers in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. The Director of Maintenance (DOM) further stated, yes, we confirm the presence of the black fungi looking substance behind the wallpaper behind dresser. The DOM stated that the sheet rock should have been replaced in both room…
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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- 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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to COMPLETE CARE — 85 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 84 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 84; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC NJ1 OPCOS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2021 |
| PC WTA OPCO HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2021 |
| SMS 2021 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2021 |
| STEIN, SHALOM | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| WELLTOWER INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| GREWAL, BALJINDER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| LEVOVITZ, YITZCHOK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| MARX, JOSEPH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/09/2023 |
| MERCADO, WANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/19/2022 |
| SHAKER, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| AURORA GUARDIAN HOLDCO II CO-BORROWER, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| AURORA GUARDIAN HOLDCO II MEZZ BORROWER, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| AURORA GUARDIAN HOLDCO II, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| AURORA GUARDIAN II REALTY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| AURORA GUARDIAN PARTNERS II LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| J & R FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| L FRIEDMAN 2018 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| L FRIEDMAN FAMILY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| LANDAU FAMILY INVESTMENT TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| M FRIEDMAN 2018 FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| PC WTA ACQUISITION LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| PC WTA MULTI-STATE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| PEACE CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| R&J FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/30/2021 |
| WATERVIEW CENTER REALTY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| HART,, JULIA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 34 rows in the source record cover these 26 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
19 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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.
About 80% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 315216. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-22, 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.