Complete Care At Chestnut Hill LLC
360 Chestnut Street, Passaic, NJ 07055 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 111 certified beds · (973) 777-7800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (27) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $41,688 in federal fines (most recent 2024-12-05)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.5% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.3% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.1% | 12.1% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.1% | 2.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.6% | 8.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.4% | 18.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 5.4% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 15.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.7% | 12.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.7% | 80.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.9% | 24.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.9% | 8.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.23 | 2.07 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.72 | 1.11 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
43.0% 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 89 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 74.7% 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 79 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 42% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 43.0%CMS range 32.4–53.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.4%CMS range 8.1–15.8 | 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 | 74.7% | 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 | 70.9% | 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 | 53.2% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 3.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.6%CMS range 5.3–13.5 | 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 111 beds and averages 106.5 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 4 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 3.23 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.38 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 2.78 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.42 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% 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.
27 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2024-12-05 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 interview, record review, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents had the correct code status, which matched their physician's orders in the medical record, that identified their wishes in the event of a medical emergency. This deficient practice was identified for 3 of 31 residents reviewed for code status (Resident #4, R #36, and R #40). 1. Resident #40 had a Practitioner Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST; a form that enables residents to indicate their preferences regarding life-sustaining treatment) dated [DATE], for a full-code status (all resuscitation procedures will be provided when a person stops breathing or their heart stops beating). A review of a physician's order (PO) dated [DATE], indicated the resident had a code status of do not resuscitate (DNR; do not perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if a person's heart stops or they cease breathing). Interview on [DATE], with Resident #40's guardian, Family Member (FM #2),…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-12-05 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — patternAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) ensured staff implemented the facility's code status policy for residents during a medical emergency to ensure residents' wishes regarding life-sustaining treatments were honored. This deficient practice was identified for 3 of 31 residents reviewed for code status (Resident #4, R #36. and R #40). Refer F 578 1. Resident #40 had a Practitioner Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST; a form that enables residents to indicate their preferences regarding life-sustaining treatment) dated [DATE], for a full-code status (all resuscitation procedures will be provided when a person stops breathing or their heart stops beating). A review of a physician's order (PO) dated [DATE], indicated the resident had a code status of do not resuscitate (DNR; do not perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if a person's heart stops or they cease breathing).…
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.
- Actual harm · G2022-08-18 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide 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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure identified Care Plan interventions were implemented timely, and the resident's physician was notified of significant weight loss for one resident, (Resident (R)69), of one reviewed for a significant weight loss. Specifically, R69's physician was not notified when R69's weight decreased and to potentially obtain orders to treat the weight loss and R69's supplements were not given as ordered in a timely manner. In total, R69's weight went from 155 pounds (lbs) to 113 lbs. Findings include: 1. Review of R69's admission Record, undated, indicated R69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included; Alzheimer's, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and diabetes. Review of R69's Care Plan located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab dated 03/08/22, revealed that R69 had a significant weight loss and weight loss trend with decreased appetite and need for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-12-05 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain documentation of the facility's ongoing Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. This failure had the potential to negatively affect 103 of 103 residents who resided at the facility. Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy titled, QAPI Plan Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement, updated 05/24 indicated, . Complete Care's mission is to continue its long history of providing the highest quality person-centered post-acute short-term subacute rehabilitation and long-term care residency in an environment that couples warmth of care with clinical The administrator, or designee, is responsible for assuring that all QAPI activities and required documentation is completed and/or up to date. During an interview on 12/05/24 at 8:47 PM, with the Administrator, the [NAME] President of Quality and Processing and the Director of Clinical Services, regarding items being reviewed and implemented in the facility's QAPI meeting, it was reported weights, wound reports, 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 · Ecited before2024-12-05 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were updated for placement of a new suprapubic catheter, pressure ulcer treatment and prevention, change in eating ability, and smoking for four of 31 residents (Residents #4, R #13, R #61, and R #301) and failed to schedule and hold quarterly care plan meetings with residents and families for five residents (R #4, R #60, R #51, R #3, and R #50) out of 31 residents in the sample. As a result of this deficient practice, the residents had the potential for unmet care needs. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #4's admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed an initial admission date of 05/25/23, with a diagnoses of obstructive and reflux uropathy. Review of Resident #4's Care Plan, located in the Care Plan tab of the EMR and dated 11/28/23, revealed, . [Resident #4] has an indwelling catheter . Review of Resident #4's significant change…
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 · E2024-12-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to identify and/or implement interventions to prevent and/or treat pressure ulcers for three of six residents (Resident #92, R #101, and R #13) reviewed for pressure ulcers. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #92's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed Resident #92 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included anoxic brain damage and functional quadriplegia. Review of Resident #92's Care Plan, located under the Care Plan tab of the EMR, revealed a care plan was initiated on 07/19/24, which identified the resident's risk for pressure ulcer development related to impaired mobility secondary to incontinence and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Care plan interventions included administering preventative treatment to groin, sacrum and buttocks area, avoiding positioning on bony prominences and monitor nutritional status via feeding tube. Review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-05 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity when staff searched (1) one of 73 residents' (Resident #60) room without permission for linens and towels. This failure had the potential to cause resident to feel undignified. Findings Include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Quality of Life - Dignity, revised 10/2024, revealed, . Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances the quality of life, dignity, respect, and individuality. Residents' private space and property shall be respected at all times. Staff will knock and request permission before entering residents' rooms. Staff will not handle or move a resident's personal belongings (including radios and televisions) without the resident's permission. Review of Resident #60's admission Record, found in the electronic medical record (EMR) Profile tab, showed an admission date of 12/02/22, with a diagnoses that included spinal stenosis, lumbosacral region, morbid (severe) obesity, nontraumatic…
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 · D2024-12-05 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident or resident's representative was informed of the risks and benefits associated with taking psychotropic medications for (2) two of (3)three (Resident #82 and #89) reviewed for unnecessary medication. Findings include: 1. Review of Resident #82's Face Sheet, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Review of Resident #82's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/13/24, and located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #82's Care Plan dated 04/16/24, and located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab revealed, The resident uses psychotropic medication related to a diagnosis of dementia. Interventions indicated to administer Seroquel as ordered. Review of Resident #82's Physician Orders dated…
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 · D2024-12-05 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, policy review and record review, the facility was unable to provide documentation that (1) one of (2) two residents (Resident #51) reviewed for personal funds received their quarterly statements. Findings include: Review of Resident #51's admission Record, found in the electronic medical records (EMR) Profile tab showed an admission date of 04/30/22. Review of Resident #51's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/30/24, located under the MDS tab of the EMR revealed Resident #51 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. During an interview on 12/02/24 at 12:49 PM, Resident #51 stated that he/she has never received any financial statements documenting these funds. During an interview on 12/05/24 at 9:58 AM, the Business Officer Director stated that the facility maintains a system where residents receive quarterly financial statements every three months. For cognitively intact residents, these statements are delivered directly to them. Regarding…
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 · D2024-12-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to report to the State Agency (SA) an allegation of neglect after a resident fell out of bed while staff was providing care and sustained a head injury for one of three residents (Resident #99) reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of Resident #99's Face Sheet, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed a diagnosis of dementia. Review of Resident #99's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/05/23, and located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Further review revealed Resident #99 had a history of falls within the last month and within the last 2-6 months prior to admission. Review of Resident #99's Care Plan, dated 01/04/23, and located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab revealed no care plan specific to the number of staff required for bed…
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 · D2024-12-05 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of neglect after a resident fell out of bed while staff was providing care and sustained a head injury for one of three residents (Resident #99) reviewed for abuse. Findings include: Review of Resident #99's Face Sheet, located electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed a diagnosis of dementia. Review of Resident #99's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/05/23, and located in the EMR under the MDS tab revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Further review revealed Resident #99 had a falls history within the last month and within the last 2-6 months prior to admission. Review of Resident #99's Nurse's Note, dated 04/01/23 at 7:51 AM, located in the EMR under the 'Notes'' tab and written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 revealed, . responded to a call from a Certified Nurse Aide(CNA #9) and found the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-05 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I assessment was completed accurately for one resident (Resident #2) out of a total sample of 31 residents reviewed for Level 1 PASRR screenings. This had the potential to prevent or delay additional services to a resident that may qualify for Level II services. Findings include: Review of Resident #2's Face Sheet, located in resident's electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed the resident was re-admitted to the facility with diagnosis which included schizophrenia. Review of Resident #2's Care Plan, dated 06/04/22, and located in the resident's EMR under the Care Plan tab, revealed, The resident is at risk for adverse effects of psychotropic medications related to a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of Resident #2's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/04/22, and located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, revealed the facility assessed the resident to have a Brief Interview…
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 before2024-12-05 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure improper incontinent care was provided to dependent residents for 2 residents (Resident #12 and Resident #87) out of a sample of 31 residents. This had the potential to effect all residents who require staff assistance with incontinent care. Findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #12's Face Sheet, located in electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis of dementia. Review of Resident #12's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/07/24, and located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of six out of 15, which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #12's Care Plan dated 03/08/24, and located in the EMR under the Care Plan tab revealed, The resident is at risk for urinary tract infection (UTI) related to urinary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 14 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-05 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving oxygen therapy had orders in place for one of one resident (Resident #4) reviewed for oxygen. Findings include: Review of Resident #4's admission Record, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed an initial admission date of 05/25/23. Review of Resident #4's Care Plan, dated 08/02/24, and located in the Care Plan tab of the EMR, revealed, [Resident #4] has oxygen therapy r/t [related to] ineffective gas exchange. Interventions included oxygen therapy at two liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula. Review of Resident #4's Orders tab of the EMR revealed an order dated 09/22/24, for continuous oxygen at two liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula and for staff to check the resident's oxygen saturation levels. Review of Resident #4's significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), located in the EMR under the MDS tab and with an Assessment Reference Date…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-05 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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, the facility failed to ensure residents received alternative measures prior to installation of side rails, and that risk for entrapment was assessed for two residents reviewed for side rails (Resident #54 and R #36) of 31 sampled residents. The lack of alternate side rail measures and assessment for entrapment could lead to potential restraint or side rail entrapment. Findings include: Review of Resident #36's Face Sheet, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included muscle weakness, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, difficulty in walking, and dementia. Review of Resident #36's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/14/24, and located in the resident's EMR under the MDS tab, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15, which indicated the resident's…
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 before2022-08-18 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure written information on advance directives (a legal document, such as a Power of Attorney (POA), Living Will, or an advance decision-making document which authorizes a designated person to make healthcare decisions on behalf of an individual if incapacitated) was provided to one of five residents, (Residents (R) 152), reviewed for advance directives out of a total sample of 25 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R152's electronic medical record (EMR) admission Record, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R152's EMR nursing Progress Notes, located under Prog (Progress Note) tab failed to indicate the resident or her representative were informed of the right to develop an advance directive. This included being provided written information on advance directives. Review of the EMR and paper chart failed to include written information provided to R152 or their representative. 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 · D2022-08-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to notify the physician and family, after one resident, (Resident (R) 69), of one reviewed for notification who had a significant weight loss. Findings include: 1. Review of the admission Record in the electronic medical record (EMR) located under the Profile tab, indicated R69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of; Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). According to R69's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/10/22, the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was two out of 15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of the R69's weights, located in the EMR under the Weights tab revealed that on 01/07/22 R69 weighed 153 pounds (lbs.). On 08/16/22, R69 weighed 113 lbs. This reflected a 40 lb/ 26% significant weight loss over a seven-month timeframe. Review of R69's Care Plan located in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure a shared bathroom for two resident rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]), for a total of four residents, had a secure toilet to prevent any potential accident hazards. Findings include: 1. During observations on 08/15/22 at 10:30 AM and 08/16/22 at 1:30 PM, of the shared bathroom between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS], revealed the toilet appeared crooked and upon further inspection revealed it was not secured to the floor. The toilet was easily moved with the tip of the surveyor's foot. During an observation of the shared bathroom for rooms [ROOM NUMBERS], and interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 on 08/17/22 at 11:30 AM, CNA 3 stated the process for reporting any maintenance or housekeeping needs would be reported directly to the housekeeper on the unit or call maintenance if a repair was needed immediately. During the same observation of the shared toilet for rooms [ROOM NUMBERS], CNA 3 stated the loose toilet needed to be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-18 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one of three residents, (Resident (R) 103), reviewed for MDS in a total sample of 25 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R103's admission Record, undated and located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, indicated an admission date of 03/23/22, and diagnoses of; traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding on the brain from trauma), alcohol abuse, and difficulty in walking. Review of R103's MDS, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/23/22, located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed the resident was discharged , return not anticipated, due to an acute hospitalization. Review of R103's Progress Notes located in the EMR under the Progress Note tab, revealed R103 did not discharge to the hospital as indicated on the 05/23/22 MDS, however discharged from the facility Against Medical Advice (AMA) to home. During an interview on 08/17/22 at 4:00 PM, the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) stated the MDS on 05/23/22, was coded…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive plan of care with measurable goals and plans for one resident, (Resident (R) 88), of four reviewed for care plans related to catheters. Specifically, R88 did not have a Care Plan to address a foley catheter. Findings include: 1. Review of R88's electronic medical record (EMR) admission Record located in the Profile tab indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted from the hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses of sepsis and urinary tract infection (UTI). Review of the Progress Notes located in the EMR in the Progress Note tab dated 07/28/22, revealed that R88 returned from the hospital with a diagnosis of a UTI and had an 18 French catheter draining amber colored urine. Interview with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) on 08/17/22 at 4:33 PM, revealed that she did not trigger the catheter. The MDSC…
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 before2022-08-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident care plans were revised for two of 25 residents sampled, (Resident (R) 27 and R26), to accurately reflect the residents' health status. Findings include: 1. Review of R27's electronic medical record (EMR) admission Record located under the Profile tab, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Review of R27's EMR Care Plan located under Care Plan, tab indicated the resident had a diagnosis of bi-polar disease. Review of R27's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/02/22, indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15 which revealed the resident was cognitively intact. This assessment failed to identify the resident had a diagnosis of bi-polar disorder. A review of the EMR and paper record for R27 was completed and there was no indication the resident had a diagnosis of bi-polar…
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 before2022-08-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide justification for the continued use of an indwelling Foley catheter for one, (Resident (R)8), of two residents reviewed with an indwelling Foley catheter. The facility further failed to ensure the proper positioning of the indwelling Foley catheter bag. Findings include: 1. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R8 had diagnoses of cerebral infarction (stroke), and vascular dementia without behavioral disturbances. The record did not document any justification for the continued use of an indwelling Foley catheter. Review of Physician Orders dated 07/06/22, located under the Orders tab in the EMR revealed, change Foley Catheter when occluded or leaking as needed, Foley catheter to bedside straight drainage for diagnosis/Hx [history] of______. Leave catheter for now. The diagnosis blank was not filled in. Interview on 08/16/22 at 10:30 AM, with Registered Nurse (RN)1,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-18 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for one resident, (Resident (R) 151), out of five residents regarding code status(treatment made in the event a person's heart or breathing stops). Findings include: 1. Review of R151's electronic medical records (EMR) admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy. A review of R151's EMR and paper chart failed to contain the code status for the resident. Review of a document provided from the facility titled New Jersey Practitioner Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) and dated 06/09/22, indicated the resident was a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). During an interview on 08/16/22 at 12:13 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 completed a search of the EMR and the paper chart. LPN 2 confirmed she could not locate the code status for R151 and stated the resident would be full code until a determination was made by the resident and/or their…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-18 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 interview, record review, facility policy review, and review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to offer two of five residents reviewed for flu/pneumonia vaccinations (Resident (R) 66 and R74) and/or their representatives, the opportunity for the resident to be vaccinated in accordance with nationally recognized standards. The facility failed to offer R66 the opportunity to be vaccinated with Pneumococcal 15-valent Conjugate Vaccine (PCV15) in accordance with nationally recognized standards. The facility failed to offer R74 the opportunity to be vaccinated with Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and if this vaccination was not available to offer one dose of Prevnar 20 (PCV20). The failed practice had the potential to increase the risk for these residents to contract pneumonia. Findings include: REFERENCE: Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website titled; Pneumococcal Vaccination: Summary of Who and When to Vaccinate, indicated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-08-18 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — isolatedRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident beds were routinely inspected for safety, including one resident (Resident (R) 26) with full side rails. This had the potential for injury for all the residents of the facility. Findings include: 1. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) admission Record, located under the Profile tab, indicated R26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of lung cancer. R26 is currently receiving Hospice Care for end-of-life care. According to R26's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/06/22, the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was nine out of 15 which indicated she was moderately impaired cognitively. On 08/15/22 at 11:00 AM, on 08/16/22 at 10:32 AM, on 08/17/22 at 11:27 AM, and on 08/18/22 at 2:05 PM, R26 was observed laying in bed with bilateral full length side rails to be in the raised position on R26's bed. 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 · E2020-02-11 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently follow medication hold parameters in accordance with physician orders and professional standards of nursing practice. This deficient practice was identified for 2 of 23 residents reviewed for medication administration (Resident #19 and #24) and 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 stated,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 supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimens as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes Annotated, Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the State of New Jersey stated,…
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 · E2020-02-11 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure 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
Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to act upon a recommendation made by the Pharmacy Consultant (PC) in a timely manner for medications that were administered outside of the physician ordered parameters. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Residents #19) and was evidenced by the following: According to the Resident Face Sheet, Resident #19 was admitted to the facility with a diagnoses which included syncope and collapse (fainting) and orthostatic hypotension (a form of low blood pressure that happens when standing up from sitting or lying down, also known as postural hypotension). On 02/10/20 at 9:30 AM, the surveyor reviewed the PC Summary Report (SR) for Resident #19, provided by the Administrator. The SR reflected a 11/14/19 PC recommendation assigned to nursing that MAR [Medication Administration Record] BP [blood pressure (BP)] reading show that a dose of Fludrocortisone (a medication used to increase BP in people with postural hypotension) and Midodrine (a medication…
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
$41,688 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $41,688 — penalty dated 2024-12-05
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to COMPLETE CARE — 85 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 3.1 | -2.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 84 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 84; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHESTNUT HILL HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/30/2021 |
| EEF CAPITAL LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/30/2021 |
| PC CHESTNUT HILL HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/30/2021 |
| SCHLAFF, BENNY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/30/2021 |
| SCHLAFF, NACHUM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/30/2021 |
| SCHWARTZ, HERSHEL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/30/2021 |
| STEIN, SHALOM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/30/2021 |
3 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.
This home reported $2.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% 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
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 315085. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-05, 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.