King Manor Care and Rehabilitation Center
2303 West Bangs Ave, Neptune, NJ 07753 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (732) 774-3500 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
- the CMS record shows $108,000 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-26)
- 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 fell from 5 to 4 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 | 5.0% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.6% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 0.6% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.9% | 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 | 0.3% | 2.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.0% | 8.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.9% | 18.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 5.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.5% | 15.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.1% | 12.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 46.8% | 80.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.3% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.8% | 8.1% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.15 | 2.07 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.13 | 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.
37.5% 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 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 95.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 63 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 37.5%CMS range 25.2–53.5 | 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 | 9.4%CMS range 6.3–13.4 | 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 | 95.2% | 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 | 81.0% | 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 | 79.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 90.6% | 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 | 1.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 4.0–11.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.39 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 113.8 residents a day — about 95% 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 2.92 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.31 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.74 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 2.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.10 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.12 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 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 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-27 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint #: 407581Based on interviews, review of medical records, and pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's physician and responsible party of a change in condition for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following:On 10/27/2025 at 8:30 AM, the surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #1.A review of the admission Record reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to; urinary tract infection, congestive heart failure, and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (inadequate supply of oxygen to the body's tissues).A review of the most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 1/7/2025, reflected the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 out of 15, which indicated a severely impaired cognition.A review of the corresponding Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that the resident's temperature on 2/24/2025, during an unspecified time…
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 before2025-10-27 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Complaint #: 407581Based on interviews, record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, by failing to ensure that medication was administered and documented according to a physician order. This deficient practice was identified for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident #1). 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 licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding; reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist.On 10/27/2025 at 8:30 AM, 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 · E2024-10-25 · 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 168449 Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility provided documents it was determined that the facility failed to consistently provide appropriate and timely incontinence care for residents who were dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) care. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #3 and #184) reviewed for ADL care and was evidenced by the following: 1. On 10/21/24 at 8:20 AM, the surveyor conduced an initial tour of the [NAME] Unit and observed a strong urine odor in the hallway. On 10/21/24 at 8:21 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #3 in bed in their room. The surveyor inquired regarding the care received at the facility, and Resident #3 stated that they were soiled and needed to be changed. The resident, then activated the call light, and stated that staff took a long time to answer the call light. Resident #3 stated sometimes it could take one hour for staff to answer the call light and incontinence care was 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 · E2024-10-25 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a system was in place to ensure a resident with a pressure ulcer, who was dependent on staff for care, was turned and repositioned. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #56) reviewed for care and services for pressure ulcers and was evidenced by the following: On 10/21/2024 at 8:32 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #56 lying in bed on their back on a scoop type mattress (a mattress with a concave center) and a Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) was assisting the resident with breakfast. CNA #1 stated that she was not too sure about the resident but knew there was a wound dressing on the resident's hip. On 10/22/2024 at 9:48 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #56 lying on their back in bed on a scoop mattress with a fall mat on one side and the bed pushed against one wall. On 10/23/2024 at 9:05 AM, the surveyor, again, observed Resident #56 lying on their back in bed on a scoop mattress. At 10:01, CNA #2 was in the 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 · E2024-10-25 · 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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the Facility Assessment and facility policy to ensure that staff were educated to care for residents who required hemodialysis and had different types of access sites. The deficient practice was identified for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for dialysis (Resident #57 and #185) and was evidenced by the following: A review of the facility provided, Facility Assessment dated 2023-2024, included but was not limited to; Requirement . resident population and the resources our facility needs to care for our residents as per the recommended guidelines: The facility assessment must address or include: (1) the facility's resident population, including, but not limited to, . b. the care required by the resident population considering the types of diseases, conditions, physical, and cognitive disabilities, overall acuity, and other pertinent facts that are present with in that population; c. the staff competencies that are necessary to provide the level 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow a physician order for a treatment to treat a moisture associated dermatitis identified on 10/21/24. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 21 residents reviewed (Resident #3) for quality of care and was evidenced by the following: On 10/21/24 at 8:45 AM, with the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) present and observed that Resident #3, a CNA #2 entered the room to provide incontinence care to Resident #3. The surveyor observed that the incontinence brief was bulging from the front to the back, and Resident #3 was wearing two incontinent briefs which were both saturated with urine and feces. The surveyor observed that the bed pad was yellow stained. CNA #2 then informed the surveyor that she had not yet provided care to the resident had visible redness on the groin and buttocks areas. The concerns were reported to the Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager (UM) who then generated a wound consult for Resident #3. On 10/23/24 at 11:00 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medical record…
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 · D2024-10-25 · 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, record review, and review of pertinent documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently perform hand hygiene to prevent the spread of potential infection. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 licensed nurses observed during the medication administration observation, and for 2 staff members observed assisting during the meal service and was evidenced by the following: 1. On 10/22/24 at 8:27 AM, Surveyor #1 observed a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) during the medication administration pass. The LPN was observed to enter a resident bathroom, turn on the water, applied soap to her hands, and washed her hands under the stream of water for 12 seconds. Next, the LPN dried her hands and used a paper towel to turn off the water. On 10/22/24 at 8:53 AM, the same LPN was observed in another resident bathroom. She turned on the water, applied soap, applied friction for 8 seconds outside the flow of water and next proceeded to wash her hands for 13 seconds under the flow of water. On 10/22/24 at 9:09 AM, the LPN stated 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 · D2024-10-25 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview on 10/22/2024 in the presence of the Director of Maintenance (DOM) and Assistant Administrator (AA), it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the call bell system was properly functioning in 1 of 5 tested rooms and was evidenced by the following: An observation at 1:45 PM revealed, the call bell button for room [ROOM NUMBER] window bed did not function when tested by the DOM. The facility's Assistant Administrator was informed of the deficient practice at the Life Safety Code exit conference at 1:30 PM. N.J.A.C 8:39-31:2(e)
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-15 · 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 review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment that accommodated resident needs and preferences. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 22 residents reviewed (Resident #59) and was evidenced by the following: On 6/6/23 at 10:46 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #59 attempting to navigate their room. Resident #59's bed was located closest to the door. Due to their height, the resident's bed was adapted with a detachable foot extension. In order to get to the opposite side of the bed, the surveyor observed Resident #59 remove the bed extension, self-propel backwards in their wheelchair past the foot of the bed, then reattach the extender. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #59. A review of the admission Record face sheet (an admission summary) reflected the resident was admitted to the facility in July of 2020, with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction (stroke) and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body). A review of the most recent…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) maintain medication carts free from unmarked and unwrapped medications and b.) accurately document the administration of controlled medications on the Controlled Drug Administration Record Tablet (declining inventory sheet) for an unsampled resident. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 medication carts on 1 of 2 nursing units ([NAME] low- side) and was evidenced by the following: On 6/6/23 at 12:53 PM, the surveyor in the presence of the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) inspected the [NAME] nursing unit's low-side medication cart and observed the following: 1. Inside the top drawer on the right side of the medication cart, a small plastic medication cup which contained two unmarked tablets. At this time, the LPN identified the tablets as an iron supplement and repaglinide (diabetic medication) that she had just poured into the cup for an unsampled resident and meant 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 · Dcited before2023-06-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in a manner to prevent microbial growth. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 6/6/23 at 10:01 AM, the surveyor toured the kitchen with the Food Service Director (FSD). The surveyor observed the following: In the meat kitchen hanging above the tray serving line on a utensil rack, one large and one medium rubber spatula. The spatulas were both cracked and discolored, and the medium rubber spatula was missing rubber in parts. The FSD confirmed the spatulas should not be in use. In the dairy kitchen hanging above the tray serving line on a utensil rack, one large rubber spatula cracked and discolored. The FSD confirmed the spatula should not be in use. On a rack, two large white, one medium green, one medium yellow, and one medium red cutting boards all discolored and pitted. There was also a tan rubber cutting board discolored black. The FSD stated cutting boards were changed as needed and she had not changed the cutting…
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 · D2023-06-15 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment for 3 of 50 residents' rooms for hand sinks (Resident room [ROOM NUMBER], #17, and #23). The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 6/6/23 at 9:32 AM, the surveyor observed in Resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the cabinet sink in the bathroom was in a state of disrepair. The front of the cabinet had missing laminate covering that had exposed the particle board. The doors to the cabinet were misaligned, had a missing handle, and the laminate covering was missing, which exposed the particle board on the doors. On 6/6/23 at 10:45 AM, the surveyor observed in Resident room [ROOM NUMBER], the molding in the front of the hand sink was missing and the wood was separated, exposing the particle board. The vertical molding of the sink was missing exposing the wood from the sink to the floor. On 6/623 at 11:34 AM, the surveyor observed in Resident 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 · Dcited before2021-08-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sanitation in a safe and consistent manner to prevent food borne illness. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 08/06/21 from 11:28 AM until 11:48 AM, during a follow-up visit to the kitchen, the surveyor observed the following in the presence of the Food Service Director (FSD): 1. The surveyor observed the [NAME] who wore a hair net that did not completely cover her hair as she prepared to obtain food temperatures from the steam table. When interviewed, she stated that her hair was supposed to be fully covered because she could possibly contaminate the food. 2. The surveyor observed that the Dietary Aide wore a hair net that did not completely cover her hair as she obtained food from the reach-in refrigerator located in the galley of the kitchen. She stated that everyone knew that their hair was supposed to be fully covered. When interviewed, the FSD stated that both the [NAME] and the Dietary Aide were required to ensure that their hair was fully covered.…
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
$108,000 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $108,000 — penalty dated 2026-03-26
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FALIK, SHIMON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER | 99% | since 01/01/2007 |
| MANDELBAUM, CHAIM | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 2 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 76% 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. 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 315299. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-25, 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.