Leisure Chateau Rehabilitation

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

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.

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.

60.1% 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 225 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 73.2% 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 183 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 0.57 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 27% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 242 beds and averages 188.6 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 53 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 3.73 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.30 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.40 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.89 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.31 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% 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 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.

21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · F2026-03-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure laundry staff performed hand hygiene immediately after removing personal protective equipment (PPE) worn while handling soiled linen prior to contacting clean laundry equipment and areas. This failure had the potential for contaminated hands to transfer pathogens from soiled linen to clean linen, equipment, and environmental surfaces, placing residents at risk for the development and/or transmission of infections. The facility housed a high-risk population with a census of 187 residents.Findings include:During a tour of the laundry area with the Laundry Manager (LM) on 03/19/26 at 7:38 AM, Laundry Technician (LT) 1 was observed transporting a commercial laundry cart containing soiled washable bed pads and mechanical lift slings, filled above the rim, from the soiled laundry area to the washer.LT1 donned disposable PPE and loaded the items into a front-loading washing machine. After loading approximately two-thirds of the contents, LT1 closed the washer door and started 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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-20 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were informed of and provided written information, upon admission, regarding their right to formulate advance directives for two residents (Residents (R) 95 and R201) of five reviewed for advance directives out of a total sample of 40 residents. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for more than minimal harm by limiting their ability to make informed decisions and communicate their healthcare preferences, including life-sustaining treatment, in the event they are unable to express their wishes.Findings included:1. Review of R95's admission Record, located under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R95 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R95's Resident Header did not reflect an Advance Directive.Review of R95's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of [DATE] and located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed a Brief Interview…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-20 · tag F0582 — isolated
  Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNOC) notification was provided and that the responsible party was notified for one of three residents (Residents (R) 124) reviewed for beneficiary notification out of a total sample of 40 residents. This had the potential to affect all residents being discharged from services. Findings include:Review of R124's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of R124's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/16/26 and located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 06 out of 15, indicating severe cognitive impairment.Review of R124's SNF Beneficiary Notification Review (SNF ABN), form revealed the Medicare Part A skilled services start date was 01/21/26 and the last day covered was 03/06/26. Further review revealed that…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-20 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolated
  Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical restraints for one resident (Resident (R) 125) reviewed for physical restraints out of 40 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to affect all residents' rights at the facility. Findings include:Review of R125's admission Record, located under the Profile tab in resident's electronic medical record (EMR), revealed the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Huntington's disease. Review of R125's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/09/26 and located under the MDS tab in the EMR, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of nine out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. Further review revealed the Posey Net Bed was classified as a restraint. Review of R125's Care Plan, dated 01/22/24 and located under the Care Plan tab in the EMR revealed, I am…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-20 · tag F0628 — isolated
  Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure three of three residents (Resident (R) 10, R12, and R197) and their resident representatives (RR) reviewed for emergent hospital transfer were provided with a written bed hold policy and transfer notice out of a total sample of 40 residents. This failure had the potential to affect the resident and their RR by not having the knowledge of how to appeal the transfer, if desired, and had the potential to contribute to the possible denial of re-admission and loss of the resident's home following hospitalization for residents transferred to the hospital.Findings include:1.Review of R10's admission Record, located under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R10 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R10's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 01/21/26 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated R10 was cognitively…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-20 · tag F0640 — isolated
  Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was submitted timely for two residents (Resident (R) 31 and R13) reviewed for MDS assessments out of a total sample of 40 residents. The failure to submit the discharge MDS did not allow for the closure of the residents' MDS cycle.Findings include:1. Review of R31's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R31 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed R33 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE].Review of R31's discharge MDS, with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/27/25 and located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed the assessment was completed but not submitted.2. Review of R13's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the EMR, revealed R13 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed that R13 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE].Review of R13's discharge MDS, with…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-20 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, facility policy, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was coded accurately for two residents (Resident (R)25 and R163) reviewed for MDS accuracy out of a total sample of 40 residents. This failure placed residents at risk of unmet care needs.Findings include: 1. Review of R25's admission Record, located under the Profile tab in the EMR, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus type II, chronic multifocal osteomyelitis left foot/ankle, and Charcot's joint left ankle/foot.Review of R25's Nursing Skin/Wound Note, dated 01/26/26 and located under the Notes tab in the EMR revealed, admission skin assessment with [Name of Wound Care company] done this morning. Chronic left lateral malleolus diabetic foot wound with Charcot deformity and chronic osteomyelitis.Review of R25's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-20 · tag F0700 — isolated
  Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents did not have bedrails when they were not assessed to have them for one of four residents (Resident (R) 28) reviewed for side rails out of a total of 40 sampled residents. The lack of appropriate assessment could lead to potential restraint or side rail entrapment. Findings include:Review of R28's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R28 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Huntington's Disease.Review of R28's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 01/15/26 and located under the MDS tab of the EMR, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Review of R28's Care Plan, dated 09/19/23 and located under the Care Plan tab of the EMR, revealed R28 was care planned for top half side rails on the right side of the bed. Review of R28's…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-10-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous foods and maintain sanitation in a safe and consistent manner to prevent food borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 10/01/2024 from 9:29 to 10:14 AM, the surveyor, accompanied by the Food Service Director (FSD), observed the following in the kitchen: 1. In the dry storage area on a lower rack of a multi-tiered, wheeled, can storage rack, a can of vegetarian beans had a significant dent on the side of the can. The FSD removed the can to the designated dented can area after agreeing that it was significantly dented. 2. In the meat walk-in on a middle shelf, a previously opened package of sliced turkey was wrapped in plastic wrap. The package had no dates. In addition, a clear plastic bag contained sliced bread. The bag of bread had no dates. The FSD removed the undated foods from the meat walk-in in the presence of the surveyor. 3. 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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-10-11 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolated
  Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  C# NJ172982 Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide all the items that were on the menu. This deficient practice occurred during one lunch meal that was observed in the conference room of the facility during a test tray evaluation by the survey team and was evidenced by the following: On 10/08/2024 at 11:28 AM, the surveyor requested the main and alternate meal for lunch on 10/8/2024. According to the [facility name] Week at a Glance - New Menu 2020 the main entree for week 4 consisted of creamy carrot soup, cheese quesadilla, zucchini stuffed tomato, and cinnamon rice pudding. The alternate meal at lunch according to the menu consisted of grilled eggplant and roasted pepper sandwich, and potato salad, in addition the creamy carrot soup. The Food Service Director (FSD) delivered the lunch meal trays to the facility conference room for the surveyors to sample as there had been resident complaints concerning residents not receiving items at meals that were listed on the menu. Observation of the main entree revealed that…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

About 73% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% 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