Mountainside Skilled Nursing And Rehab
1180 Us Highway 22, Mountainside, NJ 07092 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 151 certified beds · (908) 654-0020 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (32) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 fell from 4 to 2 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 | 20.0% | 8.7% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.1% | 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 | 1.1% | 2.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.7% | 8.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.8% | 18.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.3% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.1% | 5.4% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.9% | 15.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.6% | 12.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.8% | 80.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.6% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.6% | 8.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.07 | 2.07 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.24 | 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.
62.4% 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 184 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.4% 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 125 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 50% 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 | 62.4%CMS range 53.7–69.5 | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 7.1–13.4 | 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 | 46.4% | 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 | 43.2% | 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 | 46.4% | 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 | 97.4% | 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 | 90.3% | 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 | 95.4% | 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 | 2.1% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.0%CMS range 4.4–12.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.04 | 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 151 beds and averages 129.0 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 22 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 3.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.29 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
32 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-21 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint # 2587610 Based on interviews and review of pertinent facility documents on 08/19/25, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their abuse prevention policy to protect a cognitively impaired resident (Resident #1) from physical abuse when Resident #1's Representative (RR #1) reported to the facility's Social Worker (SW) an allegation of abuse. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1).The deficient practice was evidenced as follows: A review of the facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation - Reporting and Investigating policy initialed by the LNHA with a handwritten date of 8/7/2025, included Policy Statement: All reports of abuse (including injuries of unknown origin), neglect, exploitation, or theft/misappropriation are [.] thoroughly investigated by facility management.Reporting Allegations to the Administrator and Authorities.6. Upon receiving any allegation of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property or injury of unknown source, the administrator is responsible for…
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 · D2025-08-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint # 2587610 Based on interviews and review of pertinent facility documents on 08/19/25, it was determined that the facility failed to report within two hours to the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) an allegation of physical abuse that occurred on 8/4/25. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1), and was evidenced by the following: A review of the Facility Reportable Event (FRE) submitted by the facility to the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) on 8/11/25, included the date and time of event: 8/4/25 at 10:00 AM. The FRE further included under Narrative that on 8/4/25, [RR #1] reported concern to facility's SW that [RR #1] was on the phone with [the] resident while care being rendered by [CNA #1]. [RR #1] stated resident was yelling through the phone. [RR #1] stated [they] spoke to [CNA #1] through the telephone and [CNA #1] was not admitting to wrongdoing. Nursing unit manager made aware and responded immediately to resident room for body assessment and interview. On 8/7/25, [RR #1's] concern escalated to accusations…
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 · E2025-03-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain the residents' living environment in a clean, sanitary, and homelike manner in multiple areas on 2 of 2 floors located throughout the facility. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 2/25/25 at 1:55 PM, in Resident # 236's room located on the 1st floor in room [ROOM NUMBER], the surveyor observed five different areas of peeling and scratched wall paper on the wall, across from the resident's bed, which was exposing the sheet rock underneath. The surveyor also observed an 8 inch area of torn wall paper and a white colored spackle on the wall around it. The surveyor observed that the top drawer on the dresser located near the resident's bed, was observed to be broken and unable to be pushed back into the dresser. The survyeor observed that the bottom left side of the top drawer had paint peeling off and the pressed wood was exposed. Lastly, the surveyor observed that the cove base in the residents room,…
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 · E2025-03-04 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Complaint # NJ 00162506, NJ 177359, NJ 183441 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility-provided documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that incontinence care was provided to dependent residents in a timely manner for 4 of 6 residents (Resident #,76 #103, #105, and #113) observed for incontinence care on 1 of 2 units (2nd-floor Nursing Unit). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 2/26/25 at 7:50 AM, the surveyor completed an incontinence tour on the 2nd floor Nursing Unit and observed the following: 1. On 2/26/25 at 8:00 AM, the surveyor, accompanied by the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA #1) observed Resident #103 in bed. CNA #1 exposed Resident #103's incontinence brief, and the surveyor observed that it was saturated with urine. CNA #1 confirmed that the brief was saturated with urine. A review of Resident #103's admission Record reflected that the Resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not…
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 before2025-03-04 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — patternProvide 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
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 assess residents' vital signs and dialysis access site for complications upon return from the renal dialysis (RD) center. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #3 and #13) reviewed for dialysis and was evidenced by the following: 1. On 2/25/25 at 11:31 AM, during the initial tour of the facility the surveyor observed Resident #13 lying in bed. The head of the bed was elevated. The resident stated that the breakfast and care were satisfactory. The surveyor reviewed the medical record of Resident #13. According to the admission Record face sheet, an admission summary, reflected that Resident #13 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included, end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis. A review of Resident #13's renal dialysis (RD) communication book revealed the resident went to the RD center on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with a chair time of 9:30 AM. On 2/27/25…
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 · E2025-03-04 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint # NJ 00162506, NJ 177359, NJ 183441 Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined the facility failed to a.) maintain the required minimum direct care staff-to-resident ratios as mandated by the State of New Jersey, and b.) failed to ensure that sufficient and competent staff were available to provide appropriate incontinence care to dependent residents for 4 of 6 residents (Resident #76 #103, #105, and #113) on 2 of 3 units (2nd-floor Nursing Unit 1 and Unit 2). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Refer to F677 Reference: NJ State requirement, CHAPTER 112. An Act concerning staffing requirements for nursing homes and supplementing Title 30 of the Revised Statutes. Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey: C.30:13-18 Minimum staffing requirements for nursing homes effective 2/1/21. 1. a. Notwithstanding any other staffing requirements as may be established by law, every nursing home as defined in section 2 of P.L.1976, c.120 (C.30:13-2) or licensed pursuant to…
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 · E2025-03-04 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and review of other facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services in accordance with professional standards and ensure a.) expired biologicals were removed from active inventory, b.) consistently implement a system of records for all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation for the dispensing of controlled medications, and c.) an intravenous bag was stored in a tamper proof and contaminant resistant packaging, The deficient practices were identified for two (2) of two (2) medication rooms and two (2) of three (3) medication carts inspected during the medication storage and labeling observation and was evidenced by the following. Reference: According to the manufacturer specification of Aplisol, under storage included that vials in use for more that 30 days should be discarded due to possible oxidation and degradation which may affect potency. According to the Centers for Disease…
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 · E2025-03-04 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Refer 658 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 2/26/25 and 2/27/25, the surveyor observed four (4) nurses administer medications to four (4) residents. There were 30 opportunities, and three errors were observed which resulted in a medication error rate of 10%. This deficient practice was identified for two (2) of four (4) residents (Resident #80 and #115), that was administered by two (2) of four (4) nurses. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: A review of the manufacturer's specifications for Humalog under Dosage and Administration: Administer HUMALOG® U-100 or U-200 by subcutaneous injection into the abdominal wall, thigh, upper arm, or buttocks within 15 minutes before a meal or immediately after a meal. Under Warning and Precautions included Hypoglycemia: May be life-threatening. Monitor blood glucose and increase monitoring frequency with changes to insulin…
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 before2025-03-04 · 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
Based on observaton and interview it was determined that the facility failed to interact with residents in a dignified and respectful manner. The deficient practice was noted for 1 resident (Resident #45) during an individual interview, for 5 of 5 residents (#34, 84, 67, 108, 24) in attendance at the resident group meeting, and in 1 of 2 nursing unit dining rooms during lunch meal observations. The findings were as follows: 1. The surveyor interviewed Resident #45 in their room on 2/25/25 at 11:18 AM. The resident stated nursing staff spoke in a foreign language in front of the resident. Resident #45 stated that they did not understand the language and it made the resident feel uncomfortable. The surveyor conducted the resident group meeting on 2/27/25 at 10:30 AM. During the meeting, 5 of 5 residents in attendance stated staff frequently spoke in a foreign language in front of them. The surveyor discussed the concern with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing on 2/27/25 at 2 PM. The facility provided the 9/2024 Dignity policy and procedure on 3/4/25. The policy indicated…
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 · D2025-03-04 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents access to the NJ Department of Health (NJDOH) survey results. This deficient practice was identified for 5 of 5 residents in attendance at the resident group meeting (Resident #34, 84, 67, 108, 24) and was evidenced by the following: On 2/25/25 at 9:00 AM, the surveyor observed a binder in the lobby area containing past NJDOH survey results. On 2/27/25 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor conducted the resident group meeting. All 5 of the 5 residents stated they were unaware of how they could access the NJDOH survey reports. The residents stated they do not go into the lobby. They stated they have not seen the survey reports on their nursing units. On 2/27/25 at 1:30 PM, the Administrator and the Director of Nursing stated the survey reports were only located in the lobby and were not available to the residents on the nursing units. The facility provided their 9/2024 Examination of Survey Results policy and procedure to the surveyor on 3/4/25 at 12:00 PM. The policy indicated the survey results…
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.
Show the remaining 22 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-04 · 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
Complaint #NJ181450 Based on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to a.) respond to residents' requests for assistance in a timely manner for 5 of 5 residents in attendance at the resident group meeting (Resident #24, 34, 67, 84, and 108) and b.) ensure the call bell (bell used to summon staff for assistance) was placed within a resident's reach for 1 of 30 Residents (Resident # 74). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. The surveyor conducted the resident group meeting on 2/27/25 at 10:30 AM. All 5 of 5 residents stated that the call bell response was slow on the 11 PM -7 AM shift. One resident stated one time they had waited from 1:00 AM to 3:00 AM. The resident stated they needed drinking water and I have bilateral contractures and can't do it myself. A review of minutes from past resident council meetings included a 12/26/24 comment from a resident stating that staff needs to answer call bells in timely manner. 2. On 2/25/25 at 11:15 AM, during an initial tour of the second-floor unit, the surveyor observed Resident #74 in…
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 before2025-03-04 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint #: NJ162370; NJ1162293 Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility neglected to provide a resident who required extensive assistance of two or more caregivers for personal care the required amount of assistance who complained of rough care while being repositioned by one caregiver. The deficient practice was identified for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for those requiring assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) (Resident #333), and was evidenced by the following: The surveyor reviewed the closed electronic medical record of Resident #333 which revealed the following information: A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 2/25/23, indicated the resident had mild cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of two or more caregivers with bed mobility and incontinence care. A review of the individualized comprehensive care plan (ICCP) included a focus area for ADL self-care deficit as evidenced by the need for assistance related to physical limitations initiated 12/20/21 through 7/21/24. Interventions included…
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 before2025-03-04 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately assess a resident's status in the Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care. This deficient practice was identified for 3 of 30 residents reviewed (Resident #59, #131, and #132) and was evidenced by the following: 1. The surveyor reviewed Resident # 132's records. The resident was discharged from the facility, and according to the Discharge Return Not Anticipated MDS, dated [DATE], the resident was discharged to the hospital. A review of Resident #132's progress notes dated 12/20/24, revealed the resident was discharged home. On 2/27/25 at 1:06 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Registered Nurse/MDS Coordinator (RN/MDS), who stated that the discharge MDS for Resident #132 should have indicated that the resident was discharged to their home. 2. The surveyor reviewed Resident # 131's records. The resident was discharged from the facility and according to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan for care and service needs. This deficient practice was observed for 1 of 30 residents reviewed, Resident # 236, was evidenced by the following: On 2/25/25 at 1:55 PM, the surveyor observed Resident # 236, in bed in their room and the resident was receiving oxygen therapy via nasal cannula (NC). The surveyor reviewed Resident #236's Electronic Medical Record. Resident #236's face sheet revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to; chronic respiratory failure and pulmonary fibrosis. A review of the Physician's Order Sheet dated February 2025, revealed the resident had a physician's order for O2 via NC continuous at 3 LPM. The surveyor reviewed the resident's current care plans. There was no comprehensive care plan developed regarding the resident's order for the oxygen therapy. On 2/27/25 at 10:46 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical…
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 · D2025-03-04 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a.) proper administration of Fluticasone nasal spray in accordance with manufacturer's specifications, and b.) administration and availability of prescribed medication(s) in accordance with professional standards of practice. The deficient practice was identified for 1 of 4 nurses who administered medications to 1 of 4 residents (Resident #127) and 1 of 27 Residents reviewed for Medication Record Review. The evidence was as follows: 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 casefinding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized…
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 · D2025-03-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical equipment in good working condition to prevent injuries for 1 of 24 residents reviewed (Resident #108). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: The surveyor interviewed Resident #108 on 2/25/25 at 1:13 PM. The resident stated several months ago they reported to staff that the raised toilet seat had rusted screws which affixed the seat to the metal frame. The raised toilet seat was replaced with another which had similiar rusted screws and also a crack in the seat. The resident stated they would put a paper towel over the crack and lean to the side in order not to get pinched. At that time, the surveyor observed the raised toilet seat which was in place in the resident's bathroom. The seat had 2 rusted screws and a thin crack running from the center of the seat to the upper edge near the screws. The quarterly 11/21/24 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated the resident had no cognitive deficits and required assistance with toilet use. The surveyor…
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 · D2025-03-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) administer oxygen therapy according to the physician's order for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for oxygen therapy (Resident #66 and #236) and b.) ensure respiratory nasal cannula (NC) tubing was stored in accordance with infection control measures for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #52). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45. Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual and potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case-finding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally…
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 · D2025-03-04 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Refer F658 Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported a medication irregularity, to the attending physician, the facility's medical director, and the director of nursing (DON). This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for unnecessary medications and was evidenced by the following: On 2/25/25 at 11:31 AM, during the initial tour of the facility the surveyor observed Resident #13 lying in bed. The head of the bed was elevated. The resident stated that the breakfast and care were satisfactory. The surveyor reviewed the medical record of Resident #13. According to the admission Record face sheet, an admission summary, reflected that Resident #13 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included, end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis. A review of medication list from the hospital included the following: -Sevelamer carbonate (Renvela; a phosphate binder to control serum phosphorus levels for those 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-04 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — isolatedEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
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 provide a nourishing snack at bedtime when the time between dinner and breakfast exceeded 14 hours. The deficient practice was identified for 5 of 5 residents (Resident #34, 84, 67, 108, 24) in attendance at the resident group meeting and was evidenced by the following: The surveyor conducted the resident group meeting on 2/27/25 at 10:30 PM. All 5 of 5 residents stated they were not aware that evening snacks were available for residents. All of the residents resided on the second floor nursing units. All of the residents stated they would like to have an evening snack available to them. Resident #34 stated they eat dinner at 5 pm and eat breakfast at 9 AM. A review of the Meal Truck Delivery Schedule revealed the time between delivery of dinner and the delivery of breakfast ranged from 14.5 hours to 15.5 hours. The 7/2024 facility Frequency of Meals policy indicated a nourishing snack will be offered if the time span between evening meal and the next day's breakfast exceeds 14 hours. NJAC…
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 before2025-03-04 · 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 observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control practices and perform hand hygiene as indicated during dining observation. This deficient practice was observed in 1 of 2 dining rooms and was evidenced by the following: According to the CDC Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings, Hand Hygiene Guidance, last reviewed on January 30, 2020, included that Healthcare personnel should use an alcohol-based hand rub or wash with soap and water for the following clinical indications: Immediately before touching a patient Before performing an aseptic task or handling invasive medical devices Before moving from work on a soiled body site to a clean body site on the same patient After touching a patient or the patient's immediate environment After contact with blood, body fluids, or contaminated surfaces Immediately after glove removal. On 2/25/25 at 12:30 PM, the surveyor observed nine residents seated in the Second-Floor dining room waiting for their lunch meal. On 2/25/25 at 12:35 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 · D2024-11-14 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
COMPLAINT: # NJ00179522 Based on interviews, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents on 11/14/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for medication administration, follow the facility's Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) job description, and follow the facility policy titled Administering Medications. This deficient practice is evidenced by the following: 1. According to the admission Record (AR) Resident #1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to encephalopathy, unspecified (a syndrome of overall brain dysfunction); hepatitis A without hepatic coma (an infectious disease of the liver); type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia; legal blindness; and chronic pain syndrome. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool, revealed that Resident #1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was 9 out of 15 indicating that Resident #1's cognition was moderately impaired. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-31 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Complaint #: NJ172131, NJ175519 Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for the care of an indwelling Foley catheter (a catheter that is inserted through the urethra to allow for bladder drainage), for Resident #2. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for the use of an indwelling Foley catheters and was evidenced by the following: According to the admission Record, Resident #2 had diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) (A condition characterized by a gradual loss of kidney function), Obstructive and Reflux Uropathy (flow of urine is blocked, causing urine to back up and injure one or both kidneys), and Acute Kidney Failure (kidneys suddenly can't filter waste products from the blood). Review of Resident #2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], included the resident had a Brief…
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 · E2023-01-26 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the planned, written menu and ensure residents were notified in advance of menu changes for 1 of 1 meal observed. The facility identified 86 residents who received meals from the kitchen (total census 118). Review of a facility policy titled, Menu Overview and Changes, dated 11/2020, revealed the suggested steps to follow when changing the menu included, 4. The registered/licensed dietician approves the changes and signs the diet spreadsheet where changes were made. The food service director makes the approved changes on the following menu components: week at a glance, diet spreadsheet, posting menus, and selective menus. Review of a facility policy titled, Portion Control Equipment, dated 11/2020, revealed, Portioning is used with standardized recipes to meet menu requirements. 1. Identify portion control equipment needed by checking recipes and the diet…
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 before2023-01-26 · 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, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to cover a urinary drainage bag to provide privacy and dignity for 1 (Resident #108) of 1 resident who had an indwelling urinary catheter. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, Catheter Care: Indwelling Catheter-Resident Services, with a copyright of 2023, indicated the catheter should be in catheter bag holder if appropriate. A review of the admission Record Report indicated the facility admitted Resident 108 with diagnoses that included quadriplegia, anemia, urinary tract infection, and acute cystitis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #108 had a Brief Interview for Metal Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident #108 required total assistance for all activities of daily living and identified Resident #108 used an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of Resident #108's care plan with a revision date…
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 · D2023-01-26 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to obtain an order and assess a resident's ability to self-administer medications for 1 (Resident #13) of 1 sampled resident observed with prescription medications at the bedside. Findings included: A review of a facility policy titled, Medication self-administration, long-term care, dated as revised 05/20/2022, indicated, The interpretive guidelines in the SOM [State Operations Manual] state that if a resident requests to self-administer drugs, then the interdisciplinary team is responsible for determining whether it's safe for the resident to do so before the resident may exercise that right. The interdisciplinary team also must determine who will be responsible (the resident or the nursing staff) for storing and documenting administration of drugs as well as the site of drug administration (for example, in the resident's room, at the nurses' station, or in the activities room). This information should be…
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 before2023-01-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure reasonable accommodations were provided to meet resident needs and functional ability for 2 (Resident #36 and Resident #108) of 2 residents reviewed for accommodations of needs. Specifically, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure Resident #108 was provided with a modified call light that the resident was able to use. 2. Ensure Resident #36's call light was placed within the resident's reach. Findings included: 1. A review of an undated facility policy titled, F Tag 558-Reasonable Accommodations of Needs/Preferences indicated residents had, The right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodations of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents. A review of an admission Record Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #108 with diagnoses that included…
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 before2023-01-26 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected residents' status to facilitate appropriate care planning for 2 (Resident #71 and Resident #85) of 24 sampled residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. Findings included: Review of the Long-Term Care Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, dated 10/2019, specified, 1.3 Completion of the RAI. The RAI process has multiple regulatory requirements. Federal regulation at 42 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 483/20 (b) (1) (xviii), (g), and (h) require that (1) the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status. A review of an admission Record Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #85 with diagnoses that included tracheostomy status, anoxic brain damage, and gastrostomy status. Review of a Care Plan, dated as initiated 09/12/2021, revealed Resident #85 was at risk for respiratory impairment related to hypoxemia…
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 · D2023-01-26 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
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 reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents with a new mental illness diagnosis were referred to the state-designated authority for a level two pre-admission screening and resident review (PASRR) for 2 (Resident #74 and Resident #71) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for PASRR. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), copyright 2023, revealed, 4. Social services staff are required to coordinate the PASARR assessments and recommendations including: Referring Level II patients and patients with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual, or a related condition for Level II review upon a significant change in status assessment. 1. A review of an admission Record Report revealed the facility admitted Resident #74 on 08/22/2022 with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus and unspecified dementia. A review of a Preadmission Screening and Resident…
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 before2023-01-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide treatment and services to prevent potential complications related to the use of an indwelling urinary catheter for 1 (Resident #108) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for urinary catheter care. Specifically, the facility failed to secure Resident #108's catheter to prevent excessive tension on the catheter which could cause dislodgement of the catheter or injury to the bladder/urethra; failed to ensure the catheter's drainage bag was maintained below the level of the bladder to facilitate bladder emptying; and failed to avoid application of creams/ointments to the catheter tubing to prevent potential urinary tract infection. Findings included: A review of a facility policy titled, Catheter Care: Indwelling Catheter-Resident Services, copywrite 2023, indicated, Secure catheter tubing to resident's leg using a securement device or Velcro leg strap as ordered and clinically indicated - prevents traction on 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 · Dcited before2023-01-26 · 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, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure staff donned proper personal protective equipment (PPE) when entering a room where a resident was on contact isolation for 1 (Resident #12) of 2 residents observed on isolation precautions. 2. Ensure staff properly cleaned a glucometer following manufacturer's instructions during 1 of 1 fingerstick blood sugar observation. Findings included: 1. A review of the facility's Practice Guidelines, dated 07/2021, revealed Contact transmission is the most important and frequent mode of transmission of healthcare associated infections. It is divided into two (2) subgroups: direct and indirect contact transmission. The guidelines added that in addition to standard precautions, other measures were necessary for contact precautions including gloves, gown, disposable patient care equipment, and to limit transport and movement of residents outside the room and provide a private room when possible. An observation was made on 01/24/2023 at 9:05 AM of Registered Nurse (RN) #8 entering 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 · F2020-12-23 · 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, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous foods and maintain sanitation in a safe consistent manner to prevent food borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 12/6/20 at 9:19 AM, the surveyor, accompanied by the Food Service Director (FSD), observed the following in the kitchen: 1. The surveyor observed a four-pound jar of grape jelly opened and more than half empty stored on a shelf next to a tub of peanut butter in the sandwich prep area. The jelly had an expiration date of 3/11/22 and an open date of 11/30/20. When interviewed at the time, the FSD said jelly should be stored in the refrigerator when not in use, however, a Food Service Worker (FSW) was, Just using it. The surveyor felt the jar which felt room temperature. The surveyor requested the FSD take temperature of the jelly using a calibrated thermometer. The temperature on the jelly was 73 Fahrenheit. The FSD read the label which indicated the product should be refrigerated after…
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 before2020-12-23 · 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
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 consistently maintain communication with the dialysis center and coordinate medication administration according to the dialysis schedule. This deficient practice was observed for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #84) reviewed for dialysis services. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 12/17/20 at 12:47 PM, the surveyor observed the resident in bed awake with oxygen in place. The resident informed the surveyor that they go to dialysis Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The resident gets picked up approximately 2:30 PM and returns at approximately 7 PM. The surveyor reviewed Resident #84's medical records which revealed the following: According to the admission record, Resident #84 was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included End Stage Renal Disease. The November 2020 and December 2020 Physician's Orders (PO) and Medication Administration Records (MAR) revealed the following medications were ordered and…
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 BEST CARE SERVICES — 10 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 2.4 | +2.6 vs chain |
The other 9 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOUNTAINSIDE BHC HOLDING COMPANY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/27/2023 |
| MOUNTAINSIDE EQUITIES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 12/27/2023 |
| BROWN, AVROHOM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 22% | since 01/02/2025 |
| WILHELM, AVROHOM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 9% | since 12/27/2023 |
| CHAPLER, YAAKOV | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2025 |
| KELEHER, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2024 |
| REICH-SOBEL, DEBRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2025 |
| STEINBERG, MOSHE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
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 315259. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-04, 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.