Windmere
151 Graham Avenue, North Haledon, NJ 07508 · Non profit - Corporation · 57 certified beds · (973) 427-4087 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
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) | Not rated |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | Not rated |
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 | Not rated |
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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.3% | 4.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 12.1% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 2.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.5% | 18.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 5.4% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.5% | 12.7% | 17.1% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
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.
- Potential for harm · F2026-03-03 · tag F0640 — widespreadEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete and transmit Minimum Data Sets (MDS) in accordance with federal guidelines. This deficient practice was identified for 17 of 17 residents reviewed for resident assessment (Resident #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, and 21). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following:On 2/25/26 at 1:06 PM, the surveyor reviewed the MDS submissions for Resident #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21. The MDS's were completed yet they were not submitted/transmitted to CMS as required. The facility had submitted the MDS' exclusively as state-only assessments and did not the MDS's. As a result, the Residents are not showing up for the provider.At 1:40 PM, the surveyor interviewed the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON), who stated that they were not aware that the MDS's were being submitted incorrectly and after surveyor inquiry, the DON stated that she now realized that the MDS's were not submitted correctly. NJAC 8:39-11.2
- Potential for harm · F2026-03-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to sanitize and air dry steam table pans in a manner to prevent microbial growth. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following:On 2/26/26 at 10:32 AM, in the presence of the Executive Sous Chef (ESC) and the Senior Director of Dining and Nutrition Services (DNS), the surveyor observed the following:On a shelf, in the area of the dishwashing area, near the 3 compartment sink, the surveyor observed 4 deep full sheet sized steam table pans, stacked with water between them, 5 deep half sized steam table pans stacked with water between them, and 2 shallow full size steam table pans stacked with water between them. The ESC stated that these pans should have been air dried prior to stacking them as to prevent wet nesting. On 2/26/26 at 12:40 PM, the surveyor discussed above concerns with the Administrator.On 2/26/26 at 2:05 PM, the Administrator stated that the facility had no policy in place for wet nesting of dishware. No further information was provided.NJAC 8:39-17.2(g)
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-03 · tag F0836 — isolatedEnsure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to notify CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) and receive authorization for a change in facility name in accordance with 42 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 424.516. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following:According to 42 CFR 424.516 Additional provider and supplier requirements for enrolling and maintaining active enrollment status in the Medicare Program:(a) Certifying compliance. CMS enrolls and maintains an active enrollment status for a provider or supplier when that provider or supplier certifies that it meets, and continues to meet, and CMS verifies that it meets, and continues to meet, all of the following requirements:(1) Compliance with title XVIII of the Act and applicable Medicare regulations.(2) Compliance with Federal and State licensure, certification, and regulatory requirements, as required, based on the type of services or supplies the provider or…
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 · F2024-08-08 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — widespreadImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure: a) the Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP) Policy and Procedure, part of the facility Infection Prevention Control Program (IPCP) was reviewed at least annually and included a procedure for the reporting of multidrug- resistant organisms (MDRO), and communicable diseases to local/state public health authorities, b) a standardized infection assessment tool or management algorithm (IST) was consistently utilized for prescribed antibiotics (Resident #2), c) residents with chronic urinary tract infection with multiple prescribed antibiotics were tracked to prevent development and/or transmission of MDRO, d) staff were educated when a Multidrug-Resistant Organism was identified (Resident #7), and e) the facility maintained evidence of an ongoing analysis of surveillance data for organisms with a documented follow-up in response to the collected data. The deficient practices was identified for 2 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #2 and Resident #7) during…
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 · F2024-08-08 · tag F0940 — failed to train staff — widespreadDevelop, implement, and/or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members.
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 document review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all licensed staff received training and competencies in accordance with the Facility Assessment, and to ensure facility policies and procedures for wound care competencies were met. This deficient practice was identified during an Initial Certification Survey for 1 of 7 Residents sampled for wound care (Resident #1) and one closed medical record (Resident #2). The deficient practice effected 2 of 2 Resident Units and was evidenced by the following: On 08/07/24 at 9:09 AM, during the facility entrance conference the surveyors requested a list of all the residents who received wound care. The Director of Nursing (DON) stated there was one resident (Resident #1) who received wound care treatments three times per week, and it was completed by the Wound Care Nurse. The DON stated there were no daily wound treatments provided at the facility. On at 08/07/24 at 9:45 AM, the surveyor toured the Long-Term Care…
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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BELANUS, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/04/2023 |
| CUSACK, BEVERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/04/2023 |
| DEBEL, RICK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/04/2023 |
| DEYOUNG, SANDRA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/04/2023 |
| DYKHOUSE, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/04/2023 |
| KUIKEN, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/04/2023 |
| LYMAN, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/04/2023 |
| SHOTMEYER, AMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/04/2023 |
| STRUYK, DOUGLAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/04/2023 |
| VRIESEMA, CHARLOTTE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/07/2024 |
| CHRISTIAN HEALTH CARE CENTER | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/03/2022 |
| BALKEMA, BRUCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| DE SCLAFANI, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| DUMKE, STEPHEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2025 |
| GORTER, ROD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| GRIMM, DANIEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| HOLLAND, JULIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| KING, DEBORAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| MONTGOMERY, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| STOCKER, BERYL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/17/2023 |
| TOKARSKI, JULIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| VAN DYK, ELIZABETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/01/2024 |
| VANORDEN, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/11/2023 |
| SVENSSON, ERIK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/12/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 315531. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-03, 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.