Hartwyck At Oak Tree
2048 Oak Tree Road, Edison, NJ 08820 · Non profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (732) 906-2100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 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 | 1.9% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.0% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.4% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 12.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 12.3% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| 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 whose ability to walk worsened | 0.0% | 8.2% | 16.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 30.0% | 18.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 5.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.0% | 15.6% | 21.2% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.8% | 12.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 80.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.8% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.5% | 8.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.83 | 2.07 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.16 | 1.11 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
58.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 216 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 44.6% 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 166 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 0.75 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 93% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 58.3%CMS range 51.5–64.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 8.6–14.9 | 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 | 44.6% | 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 | 61.5% | 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 | 56.0% | 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 | 98.5% | 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 | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 4.8–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 120 beds and averages 91.0 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 29 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.12 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.75 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 3.99 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.25 to 0.80 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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 · F2024-12-20 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — widespreadMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 observations and interviews on 12/19/2024 in the presence of the Director of Maintenance (DOM), it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the volume on the resident call bell system at the nurse's station on floor 3 was set to a level to be heard. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents and was evidenced by the following: An observation on at 11:50 AM revealed when the call bell was tested from resident room [ROOM NUMBER], there was no audible notification of the call bell activation. An observation at 11:55 AM revealed when the call bell was tested from resident room [ROOM NUMBER], there was no audible notification of the call bell activation. In an interview at 12:05 PM, nursing staff informed the surveyor that they discovered that the volume on the call bell system had been turned all the way down and it had been corrected. An observation at 12:07 PM revealed when the call bell was tested from room [ROOM NUMBER], there was now audible notification of the call…
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 · D2024-12-20 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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 document the code status (medical instructions regarding resuscitation and other lifesaving measures in the event of a medical emergency) for 2 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #31 and # 49) for code status. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 12/13/24 at 11:40 AM, during the initial tour, the surveyor observed Resident #31 in bed. The resident was observed with a tracheostomy and was dependent on a ventilator. The resident was not able to be interviewed. The surveyor reviewed Resident #31's electronic medical record (EMR). A review of the resident's Face Sheet (an admission summary) revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to; acute respiratory failure, unspecified whether hypoxia hypercapnia (a medical condition that occurs when there is a problem with gas exchange between the lungs and blood) and multiple sclerosis (a chronic disease that affects the central nervous system, which includes 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 · D2024-12-20 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 care and services in accordance with professional standards by adjusting medication times of administration to accommodate for dialysis (a medical treatment that removes waste products and excess fluid from the blood when the kidneys are unable to do so) scheduled times. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #56)reviewed for dialysis. 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. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title…
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 · D2021-06-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropraite hygiene and fingernail care for resident's dependent on staff for activities of daily living. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 21 residents, (Resident #11 & #31) reviewed for care. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility in 2011 with diagnoses which included acute respiratory failure, Ventilator Dependent /support, Seizure disorder and Pneumonia. The current Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) with an assessment Reference date (ARD) of 05/28/2021 coded Resident #11 of being severely impaired for decision making. On the Section G of the MDS which referred to Activity of Daily Living, Resident #11 coded 4 and 2 which indicated total dependence of staff for all activities of daily living. The Section G 0400 which referred to Functional limitation in Range 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 · D2021-06-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation it was determined that the facility failed to send a Urinalysis Culture and Sensitivity (UAC&S) specimen to the laboratory for analysis within an appropriate time frame which led to a delay in treatment for a resident. This deficient practice was identified for one of 21 residents reviewed, (Resident #88) for quality of care and was evidenced by the following: On 05/24/21 at 11:10 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #88 lying in bed. The resident was calm and pleasant. The surveyor observed that the resident had a urinary catheter drainage bag in a privacy bag attached to the bed frame, hanging below the level of the resident's bladder. The foley catheter tubing was observed to be clear and empty of urine. The surveyor asked the resident how long he/she had resided at the facility and the resident stated, thirty minutes. On 05/25/21 at 12:30 PM, the surveyor observed the resident in his/her room seated in a wheelchair. The surveyor observed that the resident's urinary catheter bag was…
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 · D2021-06-02 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) assess a resident with contractures (a permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, and skin that limits mobility) for the use of splints (a ridged device used to protect, immobilize, or restrict motion), b.) apply splints as ordered by a physician, and c.) develop a comprehensive care plan for use of the splint. This deficient practice was identified for two out of five residents reviewed, (Resident #21 and Resident #50) for position and mobility related to limited range of motion and was evidenced by the following. 1. According to the Cumulative Diagnoses Record, Resident #21 had the diagnoses that included but not limited to; Vent Dependent Respiratory Failure (VDRF), Dementia, Hypertension (HTN) and Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) and assessment tool dated 03/03/2021, indicated that Resident # 21 had severe cognitive…
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 · D2021-06-02 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) dispose of a needle with a syringe (sharps) in it's appropriate receptacle and b.) maintain a safe environment during medication administration. This deficient practice was identified for two of four resident's reviewed, (Resident #67 and Resident #75) for medication administration. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 05/25/2021 at 7:40 AM, the surveyor observed the Registered Nurse (RN) on the 300 Unit administer the medication, Heparin (a blood thinning medication) to Resident #67. The RN administered the medication, pulled up the top of the plastic safety syringe attached to the needle so the needle was not exposed, removed her gloves, washed her hands, exited the room with the used syringe, and discarded the used syringe in the waste receptacle bin attached to the medication cart. The surveyor observed that the receptacle bin was directly underneath the sharps container (container used to dispose of used…
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 · D2021-06-02 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure 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
Complaint: NJ00145612 Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documentation it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) serve hot and cold foods at an acceptable temperature for the residents and b.) have a facility policy and procedure for maintaining appropriate food temperatures. This deficient practice was identified on the second floor during a food test tray observation and by two out of seven residents during the February 2021 Resident Council Meeting Minutes. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 05/28/21 at 11:30 AM, the surveyor observed the food trucks containing the resident's lunch meal leave the kitchen. At 11:31 AM, the surveyor observed the food trucks arrive on the second floor to be passed out to residents who resided on the unit. The surveyor observed that the food was stored and served to the residents on a plate which was covered by a dome container. The surveyor further observed that the soup was served in plastic container with a plastic lid over it. The cold drinks were placed on top of the resident's meal…
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 · D2021-06-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) ensure staff followed current standards of practice at point of care testing regarding transport and disposal of used lancets safely, b.) performed appropriate hand hygiene during a wound treatment observation according to facility policy and the Center of Disease Control (CDC) guidelines, and c.) wore the facility required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) on the ventilator unit. This deficient practice was identified for one of five medication carts reviewed for infection control, one of one resident's reviewed, (Resident #1) during during a wound care observation, and on one of two nursing units in the facility. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 05/25/2021 at 09:30 AM, the surveyor went to the 300 Unit to check the medication carts as part of the survey process. At 09:45 AM, the surveyor checked the medication cart on the 300 B side with 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.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/1997 |
| BANKS, KEITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| BOLLERMAN, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| CROONQUIST, GEORGE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| DIAZ, ULISES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| DIPIERO, DOMENIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| FEKETE, FRANK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| HICKEY, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| KIRKOS, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| LOWN, MARIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| MARTINI, GLORIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| MURRAY, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| RENNA, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| WILCHA, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/05/2024 |
| DEROSA, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| GARRETT, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| HAND, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| MACKANIC, MARIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| MAHER, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| RYAN, CHERYL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| SPARTA, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/02/2025 |
| YORK, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| CARNES, JOY-LYNNE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/16/2025 |
| HAMILTON, WILLIAM | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/17/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 32 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
This home reported $5.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 315251. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-20, 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.