No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Preferred Care At Old Bridge, LLC

6989 Rt18, Old Bridge, NJ 08857 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 140 certified beds · (732) 360-2277 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (732) 360-2277 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
2 actual-harm citations
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has 2 actual-harm citations
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • 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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
99 Old Matawan Road · (732) 679-4330 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens0.2 mi
2601 Highway 516 · (732) 838-0921 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2617 County Rd 516
Park
Oakwood Pkwy · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased5.1%8.7%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.9%4.6%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.7%0.6%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.6%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms3.1%12.1%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.9%2.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.1%8.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication18.5%18.8%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%97.2%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.7%5.4%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control14.3%15.6%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table4.1%12.7%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.4%1.2%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.0%80.1%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission25.6%24.9%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit4.8%8.1%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.272.071.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.851.111.80better

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.

59.5% 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 316 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

59.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
68.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.33U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.13hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.16hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 68.2% 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 135 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 55% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 30% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF59.5%CMS range 52.1–64.951.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.8%CMS range 8.8–15.010.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge68.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge58.5%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge63.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge99.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.3%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.5%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization9.2%CMS range 6.5–12.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.251.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.42
RN hours/ resident / day
1.09
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.15
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.66
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.33
RN hoursweekends
47.4%
Total nursing turnover
50.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 140 beds and averages 133.5 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.42 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.41 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-03-31)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2023-03-06)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2023-03-06 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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.) identify and address a severe weight loss of 7.6 pounds (lbs.) and 5.3% in one week from 9/15/22 through 9/22/22, and obtain a reweight for 1 of 4 residents, (Resident #97), b.) ensure that a resident identified as at risk for malnutrition or malnourished was comprehensively evaluated and assessed for 2 of 4 residents, (Resident #38 and #97), and c.) provide the recommended supplements to residents that experienced weight loss for 3 of 4 residents, (Resident #33, #38 and #97) reviewed for nutrition. The evidence was as follows: 1. On 3/2/23 at 11:25 AM, the surveyor observed Resident # 97 awake and seated in a wheelchair in front of the North nursing unit. At that time, the resident stated that he/she was aware of his/her weight loss. The surveyor reviewed the electronic and paper medical record for Resident # 97. Review of the admission Record (an admission summary),…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Actual harm · G2021-03-11 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to: a.) administer breakthrough pain medication in a timely manner when a resident visually and verbally exhibited signs of unmanaged pain during movement, b.) ensure the same resident was appropriately assessed and pre-medicated for breakthrough pain prior to performing wound care and activities of daily living, and c.) place a pressure-relieving gel seat cushion to the chair when out of bed to offload pressure and reduce pain associated with the resident's full thickness tissue loss pressure ulcer. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pain management (Resident #25). The evidence was as follows: On 3/2/21 from 11:28 AM to 11:57 AM, the surveyor observed that Resident #25 was in bed on an air mattress. The resident's eye's were closed and the room was darkened. The surveyor interviewed the resident's roommate who stated that Resident #25 was very sick. The surveyor asked the roommate how he/she knew Resident #25 was very sick and he/she replied 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-10-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
    Provide 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#'s 420827, 2636492Based on observation, interviews, record review and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate assistance with toileting needs and personal hygiene care for 4 of 6 residents (Residents #5, #8, #9, and #4) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). This deficient practice was evidenced by the following:1. On 10/23/25 at 8:45 AM, Surveyor #1 observed Resident #5 sitting in a chair by the bedside on the South Unit. Resident #5 was disheveled and unkempt. Their sneakers were heavily soiled and stained. Their facial area was covered with yellow and white flakes. Resident #5's lower extremities were swollen, covered with yellow flaky and discolored areas. The residents fitted sheet on the bed was heavily soiled and yellow stained. Resident #5 informed the Surveyor #1 that they used the sink to wash themselves daily. And further stated, that they had not had a shower. The resident stated, I make my bed, they don't do it.…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-10-23 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably 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 Complaint NJ# 420827Based on observations, interviews, record review and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a.) resident's call bells were within reach and could be activated for assistance with their needs, and b.) resident's needs were met in a timely manner once the call bell was answered. This deficient practice was identified for 3 out of 9 residents (Resident's #4, #6 and #7) reviewed for reasonable accommodation of needs. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: 1. On 10/23/25 at 9:20 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #6 in bed. When the surveyor inquired about the residents call bell, they stated, I do not have a call light. The resident further stated that if they required assistance, they used their wheelchair to go to the hallway to find/alert staff. The surveyor reviewed the electronic medical record (EMR) for Resident #6. A review of the admission Record reflected that Resident #6 had 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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

    Complaint#: NJ187513, NJ187972Based on interviews, closed medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 7/10/2025, it was determined that the facility failed to develop an elopement risk care plan (CP) for a resident (Resident #5) who was identified as an elopement risk. This deficient practice was identified in 1 of 4 residents reviewed for elopement risk. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following:The surveyor reviewed the closed medical record for Resident #5.According to the admission Record (AR), Resident #5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to Diabetes, Anemia, Hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol). A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, dated 5/11/2025, Resident #5 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. A review of Resident #5's Elopement Risk Evaluation form dated 6/20/2025 revealed Resident #2 was at risk for elopement.A review…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on 7/10/2025 it was determined that the facility failed to follow their protocol and policy to prevent the elopement of a safety awareness impaired resident (Resident #2) who exited the facility from the rear entrance when an incoming family member entered the facility and held the door for Resident #2 to leave the facility and return to their home with staff failing to adequately supervise resident and ensure safety of its residents. This REQUIREMENT is NOT MET as evidenced by:Complaint#: NJ187513, NJ187972Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 7/10/2025, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their protocol and policy to prevent the elopement of a safety awareness impaired resident (Resident #2) who exited the facility from the rear entrance when an incoming family member entered the facility and held the door for Resident #2 to leave the facility and return to their home with staff failing to adequately supervise…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-31 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all medications were administered without error of 5% or more. During the medication administration observation performed on 3/26/25, the surveyor observed three (3) nurses administer medications to five (5) residents. There were 32 opportunities, and two (2) errors were observed which calculated to a medication administration error rate of 6.25 %. This deficient practice was identified for one (1) of five (5) residents, (Resident #79), that were administered medications by one (1) of three (3) nurses. The deficient practice was evidenced as follows: On 3/26/25 at 8:10 AM, the surveyor observed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1) preparing to administer the morning medications to Resident #79. LPN #1 stated that according to the electronic medication administration record (EMAR), the resident had a physician's order (PO) for Insulin Lispro (a fast-acting insulin-a medication used to lower blood sugar) but had looked through the medication cart and could not find 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-03-06 · tag F0710 — pattern
    Obtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's care.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the physician addressed severe weight loss for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #97) reviewed for nutrition. The evidence was as follows: On 3/2/23 at 11:25 AM, the surveyor observed Resident # 97 awake and seated in a wheelchair in front of the North nursing unit. At that time, the resident stated that he/she was aware of his/her weight loss. The surveyor reviewed the electronic and paper medical record for Resident #97. Review of the admission Record (an admission summary) included that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but were not limited to cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care dated 11/13/22, included 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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-06 · tag F0640 — isolated
    Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to timely transmit a resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care in accordance with federal guidelines. This deficient practice was identified for one (1) of 28 residents, (Resident #87) reviewed for the timely transmission of MDS's and was evidenced by the following: The MDS is a comprehensive federal mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents that has to be completed and submitted to the Quality Measure System. The facility must electronically transmit the MDS up to 14 days of the assessment being completed. After transmitting of the MDS, it will generate a quality measure to enable a facility to monitor the residents decline and progress. According to the latest version of the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) - Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 Manual (updated October 2019) page 2-33, 05. Quarterly Assessment (A 0310 A = 02) .The MDS completion date (item Z 0500 B) must be no later than 14 days after the ARD…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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

    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 develop a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for residents with nutritional concerns, weight loss and malnutrition. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 27 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans (Resident #33 and #264), and was evidenced by the following: 1. On 2/22/23 at 12:13 PM, the surveyor observed Resident #33 in his/her room seated in a wheelchair in front of the lunch tray on an overbed table. The resident stated that he/she had not eaten lunch yet and the plate was covered with a domed lid. The surveyor reviewed the electronic and paper medical record for Resident #33. Review of the admission Record (an admission summary) reflected that the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included but were not limited to dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and Alzheimer's disease, unspecified. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-06 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolated
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    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 ensure the safe and appetizing temperatures of food and drink served to the residents. This deficient practice was identified by 4 of 5 residents, who during the 2/27/23, Resident Council group meeting stated that hot foods were received cold, and confirmed during the lunch time meal service on 3/3/23, on 1 of 3 nursing units (South) tested for food temperatures by two surveyors, and was evidenced by the following: On 2/22/23 at 9:54 AM, the surveyor conducted an initial tour of the kitchen with the Food Service Director (FSD). During the tour, the surveyor observed that the department had a functioning plate warmer and a method to heat the plate liners to assist in maintaining hot food temperatures during tray delivery to the residents. Towards the end of the tour, the FSD stated that he conducted test tray audits (a tool that evaluates how long it takes to deliver resident trays, meal appearance, taste, portion sizes, tray accuracy and acceptable food…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2021-03-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — pattern
    Ensure 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

    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 ensure: a.) a medication used to treat low blood pressure (Midodrine) was administered in accordance with the hold parameters prescribed by the physician which occurred for 19 different nurses over a period of six months, and b.) the accurate documentation of a resident's skin condition in accordance with professional standards of nursing practice. This deficient practice was identified for 3 of 22 residents reviewed for professional standards of practice (Resident #10, #25, and #77). 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 casefinding, health teaching, health counseling, and provision of 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2021-03-11 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — pattern
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    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 ensure: a.) the application of a positioning wedge in accordance with a resident's Physical Therapy recommendations and the individualized care plan, b.) the application of multipodus boots in accordance with a resident's discharge physical therapy recommendations, restorative mobility program and physician orders, c.) the individualized care plan had a measurable goal for the resident's range of motion limitations and that the care plan was developed for the resident's Restorative Nursing Program with the multipodus boots. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for restorative programming (Resident #25). The evidence was as follows: On 3/2/21 at 11:57 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #25 in bed on an air mattress. The resident's eye's were closed and the room was darkened. The surveyor observed a pair of multipodus boots (a boot that supports…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2021-03-11 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — pattern
    Ensure 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Consultant Pharmacist recommendations regarding the use of a medication to treat low blood pressure (Midodrine) were acted upon in a timely manner when the medication was identified to not be administered in accordance with the physician prescribed hold parameters for a period of six (6) months. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for Consultant Pharmacist reviews (Resident #10 and #77), and was evidenced by the following: 1. On 3/10/21 at 9:03 AM, observed Resident #10 in bed awake, at that time the surveyor interviewed Resident #10 regarding his/her medication regimen. The resident expressed that he/she had no concerns. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #10. According to the physician's Order Summary Report for March 2021 in the electronic medical record (EMR), reflected that Resident #10 was admitted with diagnoses which included but not limited…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2021-03-11 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure: a.) the appropriate disposition of a Scheduled-IV controlled drug (Tramadol), and b.) appropriately sign for the destruction of the Tramadol for 2 of 2 opportunities for medication destruction for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for medications management (Resident #25). This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 2 nurses on 3/10/21, and was evidenced by the following: On 3/10/21 at 8:38 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #25 awake in bed on an air mattress. The resident stated to the surveyor that he/she had pain in the back-side. The resident was only able to elaborate on the location of the pain, and not the type, severity, duration or other possible causes of the pain. The resident stated that he/she got pain medication that morning, and when asked if the medication was effective at relieving the pain, the resident replied, No. At 8:43 AM, while the surveyor was…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to PREFERRED CARE — 13 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 53.7+1.3 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 53.2+0.8 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.8-0.8 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.5+0.5 vs chain
The other 12 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
OB INVESTOR LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 04/04/2017
PREFERRED CARE AT OLD BRIDGE LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 04/04/2017
GREEN, DOVIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 04/04/2017
MERMELSTEIN, BORUCHIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 04/04/2017
SCHNELL, DAVIDIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 04/04/2017
BECK, MENACHEMIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/19/2017
STERN, SAMUELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/04/2017

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.

$18.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-0.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.2M
Related-party expense12% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 62%Medicare 20%Other / private 18%

This home reported $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$406per resident / day
operating cost
$12,355per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$404per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in New Jersey
$12,775/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$14,448/mo
Nursing home (private)
$8,710/mo
Assisted living

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 315321. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-31, 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.

What to do next