Clover Rest Home
28 Washington Street, Columbia, NJ 07832 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 33 certified beds · (908) 496-4477 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- 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
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 | 3 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 improved from 4 to 5 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 | 5.6% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.1% | 4.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.1% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| 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 | 11.9% | 12.1% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 36.6% | 18.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 13.3% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.1% | 15.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.5% | 12.7% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 60.2% | 80.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.3% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.6% | 8.1% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
51.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 222 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.1% 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 122 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 0.80 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 51.4%CMS range 45.6–58.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.3%CMS range 9.4–16.1 | 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 | 72.1% | 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 | 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 | 76.2% | 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 | 99.5% | 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 | 95.5% | 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 | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 2.1% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 4.2–11.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.18 | 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 33 beds and averages 31.3 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 2 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 4.42 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.42 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.65 is at or above 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 3.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.62 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.46 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-07 · 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, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that oxygen tubing was stored in accordance with infection control measures. This was found with 1 of 2 residents who received oxygen therapy, Resident #180. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 5/1/25 at 11:25 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #180 in the day room participating in the activities. The surveyor observed a portable oxygen tank on the back of the wheel chair with oxygen tubing including the nasal cannula (NC) portion of tubing hanging off the tank, touching the floor and was not in use and not stored in a bag. The surveyor interviewed the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), who stated that the tubing should not have been on the floor. The CNA picked the tubing up off of the floor and put it into the small plastic baggie. The surveyor asked the CNA if she should have put the tubing from the floor into the bag or should have discarded it. The CNA did not respond. A review of the admission Record reflected that Resident #180 was admitted to 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 · Fcited before2024-01-26 · tag F0912 — widespreadProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interview on 01/25/2024 and 01/26/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to provide at least 80-square feet per Resident bed in multi-bedded rooms or 100-square feet in a single bedded room as evidenced by the following: On 01/25/2024 during the survey entrance at approximately 10:01 AM, a request was made to the Administrator and Director of Maintenance (DOM) to provide a copy of the facility lay-out which identifies the various rooms and smoke compartments in the facility. A review of the facility provided lay-out identified the facility is a three-story (3) building with a basement. There are eighteen (18) Resident sleeping rooms and common areas on the first floor. Starting on 01/25/2024 at approximately 10:40 AM, in the presence of the facility's DOM, the surveyor observed, measured and recorded the following Resident rooms: A-Wing Resident rooms: A-1 measured 61 square feet per resident bed A-2 measured 91.54 square feet per single bedded room A-3 measured 63.5 square feet per resident bed A-4 measured 47.5 square feet per resident bed…
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 · D2024-01-26 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, in accordance with Federal guidelines for 1 of 15 residents, Resident #8 reviewed for accuracy for MDS coding. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 1/22/24 at 11:41 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #8 sitting in a wheelchair with other residents in the day room for recreational activity. The resident was resting in the wheelchair with there eyes closed. There was no urinary catheter observed. On 1/24/24 at 9:40 AM, the surveyor reviewed the electronic and paper medical record for Resident #8. An admission Record (a summary of important information about the resident) documented the resident had diagnoses that included but were not limited to, right sided weakness following cerebral infarction (stroke), vascular dementia, anxiety disorder, urinary tract infections, hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculous obstruction, and overactive bladder. A review 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 · D2024-01-26 · 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 review of medical records, it was determined that the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice by a.) not acquiring physician's order (PO) for the administration of Oxygen, b.) not administering the medication as ordered by the Physician and c.) by not following the facility's policy for (Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter) PICC line medication administration. This deficient practice was observed for 1 of 15 residents reviewed, Resident #19, Resident #5 and Resident #127 as 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 case finding; 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…
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 · D2024-01-26 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — isolatedHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint NJ #: 163054 Based on interview and review of the Nurse Staffing Report it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a required Registered Nurse (RN) was present at the facility 7 days a week for at least 8 consecutive hours a day for 4 of 14 days reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Per the Interpretive Guidance §483.35(b) Facilities are responsible for ensuring they have an RN providing services at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. However, per Facility Assessment requirements at F838, §483.70(e), facilities are expected to identify when they may require the services of an RN for more than 8 hours a day based on the acuity level of the resident population. If it is determined the services of an RN are required for more than 8 hours a day. Facilities may choose to have differing tours of duty (e.g. 8 hour- or 12-hour shifts) for their licensed nursing staff. Regardless of the approach, the facility is responsible for ensuring the 8 hours worked by the RN are consecutive within each 24-hour period. Review of the Nurse…
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 · D2024-01-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 facility policies, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper kitchen sanitation practices to prevent food borne illness. This deficient practice was observed and evidenced by the following: On 1/22/24 at 9:10 AM, the surveyor in the presence of the Food Service Director (FSD), observed the following during the kitchen tour: 1. In the food preparation area, the surveyor observed the microwave with a white and yellowish debris throughout the microwave. 2. Next to the refrigerator/freezer the surveyor observed an Air Condition (AC #1) unit with a heavy buildup of a brown colored dust-like debris on the air outlet grill of the AC. 3. Above the 3 compartment sink, the surveyor observed AC #2 with a heavy buildup of a brown colored dust-like debris on the air outlet grill of the AC. The FSD explained that the debris in the microwave was from the weekend staff, unable to state why nobody had cleaned the microwave. The FSD revealed that the microwave should be cleaned after each meal and/or when visibly soiled. The FSD…
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 · D2021-10-22 · 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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan with interventions for a diagnosis and medication management for type two diabetes mellitus for one (Resident #27) of 12 residents reviewed for care planning. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents. Findings included: 1. The facility admitted Resident #27 with diagnoses of type two diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, hyperlipidemia, and anxiety. A review of Resident #27's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. A further review indicated a diagnosis of DM, and Resident #27 received insulin injections during the last seven days from the time of assessment. A review of Resident #27's care plan, dated 09/22/2021, revealed no focus care area for DM, insulin use, or any other…
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 · D2021-10-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to revise and update a care plan related to a nephrostomy tube for one (Resident #10) of 12 residents reviewed for care planning. Findings included: 1. The facility admitted Resident #10 with diagnoses that included urethral stones and obstruction, history of urosepsis, and chronic nephrostomy (an opening that is made between the kidney and the skin on your back to allow urine to drain from the kidney). A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/25/2021, indicated Resident #10 was rarely/never understood. The resident had both long-term and short-term memory impairment and was severely cognitively impaired. Resident #10 had a nephrostomy tube. A review of the care plan, dated 02/24/2021, indicated Resident #10 had a nephrostomy tube inserted due to poor kidney function, urosepsis, and stones. There were goals of being and remaining free from catheter-related trauma through the next review date of 08/23/2021 and showing no signs or symptoms of urinary…
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 · Bcited before2021-10-22 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide at least 80 square feet per resident bed, in multi-bedded rooms. Findings included: 1. During a tour of the facility on 10/21/2021 from 8:16 AM to 8:24 AM in the presence of the facility's Maintenance Director, the surveyor observed that resident rooms located on the A-Wing, Rooms 1, 2, 3, and 4 did not have 80 square feet per resident bed. The resident rooms on the A-Wing measured 59.37 square feet per resident bed. The surveyor also observed that resident rooms located on the B Wing, Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 did not have 80 square feet per resident bed. The resident rooms on the B Wing measured 77 square feet per resident bed for Rooms 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 66 square feet per resident bed for resident Rooms 5, 6, 7, and 8. The facility's Maintenance Director confirmed these findings during the tour and acknowledged that the above-mentioned rooms were not 80 square feet per resident bed. He further stated he was present during the 2019 Fire Safety Evaluation System (FSES) survey…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EGERT, USHER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 10/01/2020 |
| KATZ, NATHANIEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 10/01/2020 |
| LEBOVIC, DOV | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2020 |
| SMOTKIN, JOSEPH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/03/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 4 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 $418K 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 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 315429. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-07, 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.