Bartley Nursing & Rehab
175 Bartley Rd, Jackson, NJ 08527 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 234 certified beds · (732) 370-4700 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 25% 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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 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 | 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 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 | 10.2% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.1% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.6% | 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 | 3.5% | 2.3% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.6% | 8.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.2% | 18.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.4% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 5.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.3% | 15.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.0% | 12.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.4% | 80.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.2% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.0% | 8.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.17 | 2.07 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.62 | 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.
61.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 538 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.6% 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 290 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 45% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 29% 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 | 61.6%CMS range 57.1–65.6 | 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 | 9.0%CMS range 6.7–11.7 | 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 | 77.6% | 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 | 74.8% | 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 | 62.1% | 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 | 99.3% | 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 | 0.7% | 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 | 1.1% | 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 | 9.0%CMS range 7.0–10.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.42 | 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 234 beds and averages 214.1 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 20 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 3.86 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.42 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.00 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-12 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an environment that is safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable. This deficient practice was identified for two of three dining rooms (Main and Dogwood).This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 8/6/25 at 11:52 AM, the surveyor toured the facility's main dining room in the presence of the Activities Director (AD) and observed a bug in the second drawer of the kitchenette, as well as a black, ground substance in the fourth drawer, which the AD identified as coffee. The fourth drawer was also sticky to the touch. On 8/6/25 at 11:56 AM, in the presence of the Food Service Director (FSD), the surveyor observed that all five steam table wells in the Main and Dogwood dining rooms had residual water marks approximately half an inch above the water level. The wells also contained dirty water with food debris that was not consistent with the day's lunch meal. A review of the facility's Monthly Cleaning List for week one of 08/25 showed a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her 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 observations, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to interact with residents in a dignified and respectful manner by failing to provide privacy to Resident #8 during wound care. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 44 residents reviewed for dignity and was evidenced by the following:During a tour of the Dogwood Unit on 8/5/2025 at 11:53 AM, the surveyor observed room [ROOM NUMBER] with the door open and two nurses inside performing wound care to Resident #8 whose bed was next to the window. The surveyor noted that resident's privacy curtain was not pulled and the window shades were not pulled down for privacy. The surveyor continued to observe the room and at no time was Resident #8's privacy maintained.On the same date at 12:01 PM, the surveyor approached the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) who was seated at the nursing station. The ADON stated that during wound care, privacy was to be maintained by either…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-12 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate and sufficient care urinary catheter care, specifically by having the catheter drain bag not secured in a manner to maintain infection control, outside of a privacy bag, and improperly positioned at the foot of the bed in manner to potentially cause pain to resident. The deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident # 13) reviewed for Urinary Catheter or Urinary Tract Infections and was evidenced by the following:During initial tour of the facility on 8/4/2025 at 10:52 AM, the surveyor observed the resident's catheter drainage bag draped over the foot of the Resident #13 bed. The draining catheter bag was not fully contained inside the privacy bag and resident's urine was visible inside the bag. The resident stated that he was not sure how long the drainage bag has been in this manner and confirmed that they do not have any pain at this current time. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #18.A…
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 · D2024-04-30 · 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
Complaint NJ # 157609; 157901; 160396 Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to administer medications within scheduled time parameters on various shifts for two residents in accordance with professional standards of practice. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 35 residents reviewed for professional standards of practice (Resident #20 & Resident #213). 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 or 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 regimes as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes, Annotated Title 45, Chapter 11 Nursing…
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 · D2024-04-30 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint NJ# 160883 Based on observations, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident received showers as scheduled. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (Resident #61), and was evidenced by the following: On 4/15/24 at 11:01 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #61 who stated he/she did not receive their scheduled shower on Friday 4/12/24 during the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM (3-11) shift. The resident stated their showers were scheduled weekly for Mondays and Fridays. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #61. A review of the admission Record face sheet (an admission summary) revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung disease that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), pleural effusion (a buildup of fluid between the tissue that line the lungs and the chest), diabetes mellitus, edema (swelling caused by too much fluid trapped 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-30 · 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 pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) store potentially hazardous foods in a manner to prevent food borne illness; b.) maintain kitchen equipment in a clean and sanitary manner; and c.) maintain cold food in acceptable temperatures during meal service. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 4/10/24 at 9:10 AM, the surveyor in the presence of the Food Service Director (FSD) and the Dietary Manager (DM) conducted a kitchen tour and observed the following: 1. In the walk-in freezer, an opened box of sliced cheese pizza. The box contained a bag with two slices of pizza outside of the bag, and the box was unsealed exposing the contents to air. The surveyor observed ice crystals on all the pizza slices. There was no observed date when the box was opened. The FSD was unsure when the box was opened. 2. In the walk-in freezer, an opened box of Salisbury steaks. The box contained a bag that was opened exposing the contents to air. The surveyor observed ice crystals on the food…
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 · D2024-04-30 · 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 observation, interview, and review pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate skin assessments. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 35 resident medical records reviewed (Resident #61), and was evidenced by the following: On 4/15/24 at 11:01 AM, the surveyor interviewed Resident #61 who stated he/she did not receive their scheduled shower on Friday 4/12/24. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #61. A review of the admission Record face sheet (an admission summary) revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung disease that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), pleural effusion (a buildup of fluid between the tissue that line the lungs and the chest), diabetes mellitus, edema (swelling caused by too much fluid trapped in the body tissues), and end stage renal disease (the kidneys lose the ability to remove waste and balance fluids). A review of the most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set…
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 · D2024-04-30 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure appropriate storage for respiratory equipment for infection prevention. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #61), and was evidenced by the following: On 4/15/24 at 11:01 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #61 in bed and their nebulizer mask and tubing placed directly on the nebulizer machine (a device used for producing a fine spray of liquids). Resident #61 informed the surveyor that after their nebulizer treatment (breathing treatment), they removed their nebulizer mask and placed it on the machine. On 4/15/24 at 11:15 AM, the surveyor interviewed the resident's License Practical Nurse (LPN) who stated she had administered the resident's nebulizer treatment earlier, but she never went back to the resident's room to verify if the treatment was completed. At that time, the LPN accompanied by the surveyor went into Resident #61's room, and the LPN took the resident's nebulizer mask off 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 · Dcited before2024-04-30 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the resident's environment, equipment, and living areas in a safe, sanitary, and homelike manner. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 4 nursing units (Birch Unit) and was evidenced by the following: On 4/10/24 at 10:35 AM, the surveyor entered resident room Birch #17 and observed the doorknob backplate was not secured properly to the resident's entrance door or bathroom door, which resulted in the backplate hanging loosely with a gap between the doorknob and the door. On 4/10/24 at 10:37 AM, the surveyor entered resident room Birch #15 and observed the doorknob backplate was not secured properly to the resident's entrance door which resulted in the backplate hanging loosely with a gap between the doorknob and the door. On 4/10/24 at 11:02 AM, the surveyor observed in resident room Birch #11, the packaged terminal air unit (PTAC) (a self-contained through-the-wall air conditioning and heating unit) with the cover detached and was placed next…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-12 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY COMPLAINT # NJ162053 Based on interviews, medical records review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 9/12/23, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their policies and procedures for a facility-initiated discharge. A resident (Resident #1) was involved in an altercation with another resident and sent to the hospital for a behavioral evaluation. When the resident was discharge from the hospital, the facility would not permit a return back to the facility. The deficient practice was identified for Resident #1, 1 of 3 residents reviewed for transfer/discharge and was evidenced by the following: According to the admission Record, Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included but were not limited to lack of coordination, dementia with behavioral disturbances, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, and Parkinson's Disease. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 12/13/22, revealed…
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 · D2021-12-20 · 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 observations, interviews, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was kept in a clean and sanitary condition, and stored properly to reduce the risk of infection for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for respiratory equipment, Resident #18. The deficient practice was evidenced as follows: According to the facility's admission Record, Resident #18 was admitted to the facility in 11/2019 with diagnoses which included but were not limited to: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Unspecified (a group of diseases that causes airflow blockage and breathing related problems). Review of a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 11/30/21, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 which indicated that the resident's cognition was intact. Review of the resident's Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 11/25/21 for Ipratropium-Albuterol Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) milligrams per 3 milliliters orally via nebulizer (a machine that delivers aerosol medication) every…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BARTLEY OPERATOR HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/16/2022 |
| GREEN, DOV | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 48% | since 09/16/2022 |
| MERMELSTEIN, BORUCH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 48% | since 09/16/2022 |
| SCALO, PHILIP | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 09/16/2022 |
| MIARA, ABRAHAM | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/16/2022 |
| STERN, SAMUEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/16/2022 |
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 $7.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 25% 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 315288. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-12, 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.