Montclair Care Center
111-115 Gates Avenue, Montclair, NJ 07042 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 64 certified beds · (973) 746-4616 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (36% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- 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)
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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.3% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.0% | 12.1% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.8% | 8.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.3% | 18.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.3% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.1% | 15.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.7% | 12.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.2% | 80.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.1% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.5% | 8.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.50 | 2.07 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.02 | 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.
44.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 97 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.4% 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 53 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 0.43 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 74% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 | 44.9%CMS range 35.9–54.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 8.2–15.5 | 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 | 77.4% | 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 | 71.7% | 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 | 67.9% | 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 | 98.8% | 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 | 8.1% | 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 | 10.5%CMS range 6.1–16.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.33 | 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 64 beds and averages 57.9 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.49 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.99 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.31 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-26 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode 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
Based on the interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete and transmit a Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care) in accordance with federal guidelines. This deficient practice was identified for 4 of 15 residents (Resident #1, 3, 4, and #55) during the review of resident assessment. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: The MDS is a comprehensive tool, a federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents that must be completed and transmitted to the Quality Measure System. The facility must electronically transmit the MDS within 14 days of completing the assessment. After the MDS is transmitted, a quality measure will be transmitted to enable a facility to monitor the residents' decline or progress. On 11/24/25 at 9:04 AM, the surveyor provided the MDS Coordinator/Registered Nurse (MDSC/RN) with the list of 3 residents who had not completed an MDS in over 14 days. The surveyor also requested a copy of the resident's final validation report (generated after every MDS…
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 · D2025-11-26 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of other facility provided documents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services in accordance with professional standards to ensure consistent maintenance of the system of record keeping of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) order Form-222 (a federal narcotic requisition form), that enabled accurate reconciliation of controlled-dangerous substances (narcotic medications, that due to their high potential for abuse, are tracked with a degree of detail and attention) that was ordered and received. The deficient practice was identified for 1of 11 DEA Form-222s reviewed and was evidenced by the following: Reference:21 CFR 1305.16(b) Whenever any used or unused DEA Forms 222 are stolen or lost (other than in the course of transmission) by any purchaser or supplier, the purchaser or supplier must immediately upon discovery of the theft or loss, report the theft or loss to the Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration in the Divisional Office responsible for the area in which…
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 · D2025-11-26 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all medications were administered without error of 5% or more. During the medication administration observation on 11/24/25, the surveyor observed two (2) nurses administer medications to five (5) residents. There were 25 opportunities for error, and two (2) errors were observed which resulted in a medication error rate of 8.0%. This deficient practice was identified for one (1) of five (5) residents (Resident #55), that was administered by one (1) of two (2) nurses and was evidenced by the following:On 11/24/25 at 9:54 AM, from the hallway, the surveyor observed Resident #55 awake, in bed, and well dressed. At 9:56 AM, the surveyor observed the Licensed Practical Nurse prepare medications for Resident #55. The medications prepared included the following physician's order (PO):-Colace (Docusate) oral capsules 100 milligrams (mg), to be given 2 capsules by mouth, one time a day for constipation (two (2) capsules = 200 mg). The PO was started on 11/10/25.-Vitamin B1 oral…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-04-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) store potentially hazardous foods in a manner to prevent food borne illness, and b.) failed to maintain the kitchen environment and equipment in a sanitary manner to prevent contamination from foreign substances and potential for the development a food borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 4/3/24 at 9:45 AM, in the presence of the Food Service Director (FSD), the surveyor observed the following: 1. In the food preparation area, inside the ice machine, the surveyor observed a black colored build up along the seam and white colored matter inside the walls of the ice machine. The FSD stated that the dish machine was last cleaned about one month ago. 2. In the food preparation area, above the stove and grill cook tops, the surveyor observed 3 out of 5 sprinkler head nozzles and the pipes soiled with a brown colored substance. 3. In the food preparation area, the surveyor observed that 3 of 3 grill knobs were soiled with a brown colored…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-05 · tag F0640 — patternEncode 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 the interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete and submit electronically the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care of all residents, within 14 days of completing the resident's assessment and in accordance with the Center's for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual. This deficient practice was identified for 14 residents sampled (Resident #11, 16, 22, 26, 27, 33, 36, 39, 50, 117, 9, 30, 45, and #41) and reviewed for resident assessment. According to the Long-Term Care RAI 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.18.11, updated October 2023, the MDS is a comprehensive tool and a federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents. It must be completed and transmitted to the Quality Measure System. The facility must electronically transmit the MDS within 14 days of the assessment being completed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 4/3/24, at 2:35 PM,…
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 · E2024-04-05 · tag F0711 — patternEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
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: a.) assure that the physician responsible for supervising the care of residents signed and dated monthly physician's orders. This deficient practice was observed for 3 of 12 residents reviewed (Resident #41, #58 and #45), b.) document Physician Progress Notes (PPN) at least every 60 days with alternating Nurse Practitioner (NP) visits for 1 of 12 residents reviewed (Resident #45), and c.) document physician progress notes that reflect the physician's decisions about the continued appropriateness of the resident's current medical regimen for 1 of 12 resident reviewed (Resident #28). The deficient practices were evidenced by the following: 1. On 4/2/24 at 11:14 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #41 sitting in the wheelchair, returning from the activity room, wheeled by the staff. The surveyor reviewed Resident #41's hybrid medical records (paper and electronic). According to the admission Record (an admission summary), Resident #41 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-05 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that 5 of 5 licensed nurses were assessed to have the required competencies to meet the care needs of residents residing at the facility. The deficient practice is evidenced as follows. On 4/04/24 at 10:44 AM the surveyor requested from the Director of Nursing (DON) 5 randomly selected nurses' annual nurse competencies. Later that day the DON provided 5 Nursing Performance Appraisals for the 5 nurses. The Appraisals did not address specific nursing tasks. Many of the Appraisals covered non-care areas, such as demonstrates knowledge of resident's bill of rights, completing the 24 hour report, maintaining residents' dignity, responding to residents' calls for assistance, ensures safety of personal possessions, willing to work under supervision, knowledge with carrying out daily nursing tasks, applies restraints according to manufacturers instruction and plan of care, and carry out proper infection control techniques. The Appraisals that addressed nursing tasks failed to list the specific required…
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 · D2024-04-05 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident's call light was readily accessible. The deficient pratice was identified for 1 resident (#34) of 9 reviewed for accommodation of need and evidenced by the following. On 4/01/24 at 10:05 AM and 04/02/24 9:20 AM the surveyor observed the resident alert in bed with eyes open. The residents' speech was garbled. On both days the call light cord was tied to the right hand rail, hanging down, and resting on the floor. A review of the medical record revealed the following information. The admission Record indicated the resident had dementia without behavioral disturbance and adult failure to thrive. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool indicated the resident had long and short term memory deficits and impaired decision making skills. On 4/03/24 at 11:38 AM the surveyor interviewed Certified Nursing Assistant #1 (CNA #1) who confirmed the call bell should be within reach of the resident. On 4/03/24 at 11:39 AM the surveyor interviewed CNA #2 who was 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 · D2024-04-05 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 complete a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 of 12 residents reviewed (Resident #34). The deficient practice was evidenced by the following. On 4/1/24 at 10:05 AM, the surveyor observed the resident in bed receiving a feeding through a gastrostomy tube (a tube placed endoscopically into the stomach). A review of the medical record revealed the following information. The admission Record included diagnoses of gastrostomy and adult failure to thrive. The Nursing Progress Note of 1/11/2024 at 10:01 AM indicated the resident was transferred to the hospital for a planned insertion of a gastrostomy feeding tube. The Nursing Progress Note of 1/16/2024 at 10:39 AM indicated the resident was re-admitted to the facility after having had a gastrostomy inserted. The tracking of completed MDS assessments listed a Discharge Return Anticipated on 1/11/24 (indicating when the resident was transferred to the hospital for gastrostomy placement), an Entry…
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 · D2024-04-05 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care of all residents, accurately for 2 of 12 residents reviewed (Resident #41, and #116). The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 4/2/24 at 11:14 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #41 sitting in the wheelchair, who returned from the activity room, and was wheeled by the staff. The surveyor reviewed Resident #41's hybrid (combination of paper and electronic) medical record as follows: The admission Record (an admission summary) documented that Resident #41 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to Alzheimer's disease (impairment of memory). The resident's most recent Annual MDS (AMDS) assessment, dated 11/24/23, reflected that Resident #41 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, indicating severe cognition impairment. The AMDS with an ARD of 11/24/23 Section D Resident Mood Interview (PHQ-9), signed by the MDS…
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 · D2024-04-05 · 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 record review it was determined that the facility failed to consistently assess a resident's vital signs and dialysis access site prior to leaving and when returning from the dialysis clinic. The deficient practice was identified for 1 of 1 resident, #117, reviewed for dialysis care and services and is evidenced by the following. On 4/1/24 at 10:01 AM, the surveyor observed the resident seated in a side chair in their room. The resident stated they go to the dialysis clinic 3 times a week. The resident stated the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) gets the resident ready and brings the resident down to meet the transport driver. The resident stated the nurse does not assess the resident before leaving or when returning from the dialysis clinic. 04/2/24 at 1:15 PM, the surveyor observed the resident in their room talking with the CNA. At 1:30 PM the CNA brought the resident out of the room and into the hallway. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) inquired if the resident had their dialysis communication book, the resident replied, and the CNA…
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 · D2024-04-05 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, review of the electronic medical record and other pertinent medical records, the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #28) was free of an unnecessary medication by failing to follow the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) recommendations and failing to provide adequate diagnosis, indications and documentation supporting the use of a medication. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 4/2/2024 at 12:30 PM, the surveyor reviewed the electronic medical record (EMR) for Resident #28. The resident's EMR reflected a physician's order dated 12/27/2023 for Linzess Capsule (a medication used to treat irritable bowel syndrome with constipation or chronic idiopathic constipation) two-hundred ninety (290) micrograms (mcg) with directions give one (1) capsule by mouth every twenty-four (24) hours as needed (PRN) for constipation. The resident's EMR reflected documentation from the CP dated 1/2/2024 that reflected a request to clarify Linzess. On 04/2/2024 at 1:17 PM the surveyor interviewed the Director 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 · Fcited before2022-03-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper kitchen sanitation practices and properly store potentially hazardous foods in a safe and sanitary environment to prevent the development of food-borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: During a tour of the kitchen with two surveyors and the Food Service Director (FSD) on 2/25/22 at 11:00 AM, the following was observed: 1. The walk-in refrigerator floor was covered with wet debris and all rusted as identified by the FSD, who also stated that there was a leak and that's why the floor is wet and rusted. There were three wire racks inside the refrigerator. Each rack contained four shelves. All the shelves had evidence of debris build-up which the FSD was able to rub off with a white rag and stated that it was debris. In addition, the FSD acknowledged that all the shelves on the wire racks were rusted. She further stated that she told the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator…
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 · D2022-03-03 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a.) two anti-anxiety medications (Alprazolam [Xanax] and Lorazepam [Ativan]) prescribed to be given as needed (PRN) for anxiety and extreme agitation had a documented rationale for why it was being administered, and any non-pharmacological interventions trialed before administering the medications, and b.) a clinical rationale was documented for why the as needed anti-anxiety medications were prescribed for greater than 14-days. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #50), and was evidenced by the following: On 2/28/22 at 10:42 AM, the surveyor observed Resident # 50 inside his/her room. The resident smiled at the surveyor and spoke some English but mostly Spanish. The resident was observed eating a small candy bar with enjoyment. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #50. A review of the resident's admission Record reflected…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to HIGHBRIDGE HEALTHCARE — 6 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EGERT, DEBBIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 06/13/2019 |
| EGERT, USHER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | 10% | since 06/13/2019 |
| NATANOV, BRIAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 80% | since 06/13/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 $631K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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 315363. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-26, 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.