Complete Care At Green Acres
1931 Lakewood Road, Toms River, NJ 08755 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 167 certified beds · (732) 286-2323 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 improved from 4 to 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 5.4% | 8.7% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.0% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 14.6% | 12.1% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.3% | 2.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.2% | 8.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.6% | 18.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 97.2% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.7% | 5.4% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.9% | 15.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.4% | 12.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.5% | 80.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.3% | 24.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.6% | 8.1% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.16 | 2.07 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.39 | 1.11 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
58.3% 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 408 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 73.9% 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 245 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 26% 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 | 58.3%CMS range 52.6–63.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.9%CMS range 7.5–13.0 | 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 | 73.9% | 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 | 70.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 55.9% | 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 | 99.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.8% | 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 | 9.0%CMS range 6.7–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.38 | 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 167 beds and averages 157.6 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.45 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 3.78 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.53 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% 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 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.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · 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 record review, interview, and document review, the facility failed to have a complete and accurate medical record for three out of 32 (Resident (R) 126, R164, and R191) sampled residents. This failure had the potential to adversely affect the care of these residents with inaccurate information in the medical record.Findings include: 1. Review of R126's undated Face Sheet, located under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR), indicated R126 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure, hypertension, and stroke. Review of R126's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), located under the MDS tab in the EMR and with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/04/25, indicated R126 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of five out of 15, which indicated R126 was severely cognitively impaired. Review of R126's Nursing Progress Notes, located under the Progress Note tab in the EMR, indicated on 07/17/25 at 2:49 PM, . During medication pass, patient noted…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
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, policy review, and review of McGeer criteria, the facility failed to have an Antibiotic Stewardship Program that followed current standards of practice for prescribing an antibiotic for one of four residents (Resident (R) 99) reviewed for antibiotic stewardship out of total sample of 32. This failure had the potential to cause residents to be prescribed antibiotics that were potentially unnecessary.Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Surveillance, dated 09/01/2,4 indicated, A system of infection surveillance serves as a core activity of the facility's infection prevention and control program. Its purpose is to identify infections and to monitor adherence to recommended infection prevention and control practices in order to reduce infections and prevent the spread of infections . The CDC's [Centers for Disease Control] National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Long Term Care Criteria, updated McGeer criteria or other nationally-recognized [sic]…
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 before2024-07-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and pertinent facility documentation on 07/09/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure handwashing was performed according to their policy and acceptable standards of infection control practice according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 3 Employees (Certified Nursing Assistant #1 (CNA #1), observed for handwashing technique. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: Reference: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings, last reviewed 1/8/2021, Healthcare Providers, When and How to Perform Hand Hygiene, Techniques for Washing Hands with Soap and Water, recommends: When cleaning your hands with soap and water, wet your hands first with water, apply the amount of product recommended by the manufacturer to your hands, and rub your hands together vigorously for at least 15 seconds, covering all surfaces of the hands and fingers. Rinse your…
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 · E2024-02-08 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure 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 record review for two of three units (Rehabilitation unit and Secure unit) and five residents (Resident (R) 17, R196, R125, R2, R18) of 28 sampled residents revealed the food served was bland and residents did not receive salt, pepper, or Mrs. Dash to season their food after being served. Findings include: Review of R17's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/10/23 revealed R17 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated R17 was cognitively intact. During the initial tour of the facility on 02/05/24 at 11:39 AM, R17 stated, The food doesn't have any taste, no spices in it at all. During an interview on 02/05/24 at 11:57 AM, R196 stated that the food was salty, especially the gravy. Review of R125's admission MDS with an ARD of 12/11/23 revealed a BIMS score of 13 of 15 which indicated that R125's cognition was intact. During an interview on 02/05/24 at 12:08 PM, R125's family member (F) 1 stated that the facility used to put salt, pepper packets, and butter on the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow infection control procedures during a wound cleaning process, while delivering a meal tray to a resident in droplet isolation, and during room cleanings for residents in C-diff isolation for four of seven residents (Resident (R)86, R345, R134, and R194) reviewed for infection control standards of 28 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R86's undated admission Record located under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R86 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of hypertension and peripheral vascular disease. Review of R86's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/15/23 revealed R86 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated R86 was cognitively intact. During an observation of a dressing change to R86's sacral pressure ulcer on 02/08/24 at 10:59 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse…
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 · D2024-02-08 · 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 interview, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to notify the State Survey Agency (SSA) within 24 hours of an allegation of abuse, in which 12 tablets for one of one Resident (R) 191's oxycodone narcotic medication was removed from the medication's bingo card and replaced with another pill of similar size but a different color. The facility failed to notify the SSA until two days and 10 hours after the allegation of misappropriation of resident's property was brought to the Director of Nursing (DON)'s attention. Findings include: Review of the facility's investigative document, provided by the facility, revealed that on the Atrium unit on 07/25/23 at 7:00 AM, two nurses, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 1 and LPN2, reported immediately to the DON that 12 tablets from R191's oxycodone bingo card had been removed and replaced with 12 tablets of similar size but different color. The back of the card showed that for 12 bubbles, the bubble had been sliced open, the oxycodone removed and replaced with another pill, then taped to close the bubble. 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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 the resident's baseline care plan contained the care and services required for two of two residents (Resident (R) 125 and R134) of 28 sampled residents, required upon admission to the facility. In addition, the facility failed to provide the summary of care to the resident and representative at the care plan meeting that was conducted after the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed. Findings include: 1. Review of R125's Face Sheet in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R125 was admitted on [DATE]. During an observation and interview on 02/05/24 at 12:06 PM, R125 received oxygen through a nasal cannula. R125 stated that he didn't use oxygen at home but started using oxygen at the hospital and since being admitted to the facility. During an interview on 02/06/24 at 3:06 PM, Social Worker (SW) Long Term Care (LTC) printed R125's Baseline care plan and R125's admission MDS…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide 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 Based one observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who could not perform their own Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) regarding bathing and grooming was provided by facility staff for two of two residents (Residents (R)193 and R194) of 28 sampled residents. Findings include: 1. Review of R193's Face Sheet in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R193 was admitted on [DATE]. No Minimum Data Set (MDS) information available. Observation and interview on 02/05/24 at 11:50 AM, revealed R193 had a full face of facial hair that was approximately half inch long and his fingernails were long with a dark substance underneath. Immediately at the time of this observation, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 entered the room and confirmed R193 should have been shaved and his nails trimmed. Review of R193's Care plan from the Care plan tab in the EMR with a date of 01/30/24, revealed a problem that R193 has an ADL self-care performance…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to encourage and arrange transportation for two of two residents (Resident (R) 46 and R128) of 28 sampled residents to activities of their choosing. Findings include: 1. During an interview on 02/05/24 at 2:37 PM, R46 stated that he used to go to the second floor for activities, but he was told that they stopped first floor residents from mingling with second floor residents. R46 stated that he liked Bingo, and that he had not been able to go to Bingo on the second floor and that he missed that activity. Review of R46's Face Sheet in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R46's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/28/24 under the MDS tab in the EMR revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated R46's cognition was intact. Review of the admission MDS section 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 · E2021-11-10 · tag F0712 — patternEnsure that the resident and his/her doctor meet face-to-face at all required visits.
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 physician responsible for supervising the care of residents conducted face to face visits and wrote progress notes at least every thirty days for the first ninety days for new admissions or every sixty days after. This deficient practice was identified for 4 of 6 residents (Resident #3, #42, #49, and #66) during the Resident Council group meeting and evidenced by the following: On 11/8/21 at 10:01 AM, the surveyor conducted a resident group meeting with six residents who were alert and oriented and selected by the facility to attend the group meeting. Five of the six residents complained to the surveyor that they do not see their primary care physician (MD) or nurse practitioner (NP) regularly. Resident #42 stated that since admission, he/she has not seen their MD. On 11/8/21 at 11:03 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) informed the surveyor that all MD and NP were conducting in-person visits for all…
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 · D2021-11-10 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the reconciliation and notification of the physician for the clarification of an enteral feeding order in accordance with professional standards of nursing practice. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 24 resident reviewed for professional standards of nursing practice (Resident #359). 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 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…
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 · D2021-11-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in a manner to prevent microbial growth. This deficient practice was evidenced by the following: On 11/5/21 at 11:17 AM, the surveyor conducted a follow-up kitchen visit with the Dietary Director (DD) and observed the cook taking lunch food temperatures at the steam table. The surveyor observed the white steam table attached cutting board was deeply pitted and discolored black and reddish. At this time, the DD stated that staff sanitize the cutting board prior to serving food. She was unable to respond when questioned if this cutting board should be used; when cutting boards should be replaced; or when the cutting boards were last replaced. The DD then showed the surveyor a small white cutting board that was pitted and discolored black. On 11/5/21 at 11:21 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Regional Dietary Director (RDD) who stated that cutting boards should be replaced when there were scratches or indentations because bacteria growth could…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 | 5 of 5 | 3.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 2.7 | +2.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EEF CAPITAL LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 45% | since 10/01/2017 |
| GREEN ACRES ORG LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 55% | since 10/01/2017 |
| SCHLAFF, BENNY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 23% | since 10/01/2017 |
| SCHLAFF, NACHUM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 23% | since 10/01/2017 |
| HOCH, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2017 |
| DACHS, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2017 |
| ISSA, MOUSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2017 |
| MERCADO, WANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2017 |
| YU, HENRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2017 |
| GREEN ACRES PROPERTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/25/2025 |
| RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| STEIN, SHALOM | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 $2.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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 315265. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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.