Greenwood House Home For The Jewish Aged

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

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.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

59.8% 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 282 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 54.1% 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 109 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 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 62% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 137 beds and averages 107.1 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 30 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.82 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.69 is at or above 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 4.28 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.04 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.78 to 0.44 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%.

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.

23 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · L2024-08-21 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — widespread
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  PART A NJ Complaint #: 174306 Based on interview and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their abuse policies and procedures by ensuring a resident (Resident #171) was free from verbal abuse and an involuntary restraint by: a.) immediately suspending the Registered Nurse (RN #1) and Certified Nursing Aide (CNA #1) who the allegation was made against pending a thorough investigation; and b.) thoroughly investigating an allegation of verbal abuse and involuntary restraint. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 171); and two staff members (RN #1 and CNA #1) who had access to all the residents in the facility on 3 of 3 nursing units, reviewed for abuse. Resident #171, who had diagnoses which included arthritis, anxiety, and depression reported to the Social Worker (SW) on 6/3/24, that two nurses were extremely rude to the resident on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM (11-7) shift; the nurses yelled at the resident and demanded that the resident turn the light off. The resident reported that the nurses said…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Immediate jeopardy · L2024-08-21 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — widespread
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NJ Complaint #: 174306 Based on interview and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of verbal abuse and involuntary restraint for a resident (Resident #171) who informed the facility that the Registered Nurse (RN #1) and Certified Nursing Aide (CNA #1) verbally abused them and placed a chair on the side of their bed preventing the resident from using the restroom. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 171); and two staff members (RN #1 and CNA #1) who had access to all the residents in the facility on 3 of 3 nursing units, reviewed for abuse. Resident #171, who had diagnoses which included arthritis, anxiety, and depression reported to the Social Worker (SW) on 6/3/24, that two nurses were extremely rude to the resident on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM (11-7) shift; yelled at the resident and demanded the resident turn the light off. The resident reported that the nurses said the resident was embarrassing the nurses, and the nurse blocked the bedside with a chair so 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure 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 observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure kitchen utensils were stored in a clean and sanitary manner. These failures had the potential to cause food-borne illness for 101 out of 106 residents who received meals prepared in the facility (five residents received nutrition via feeding tubes). Findings include:1. During the initial kitchen inspection, completed with the Dietary Manager (DM) and Executive Chef (EC) on 03/23/26 at 10:18 AM, the following concerns were noted: a. In a bin of serving utensils (spoons and scoops), the handle of one serving spoon was covered with a white substance on the handle. The DM stated the white substance was mayonnaise. b. On the three-compartment sink's metal counter were four out of 13 full sheet trays stacked wet. Also on the counter was a mixture of two-inch, four-inch, and six-inch hotel pans. Six of the pans were stacked wet and greasy to touch. The DM stated, They (pans) were washed last night, and the drying rack was full, so they put them over here. c. On one of four drying rack carts were five…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  Provide 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 observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff performed appropriate hand hygiene when moving between rooms, including one with enhanced barrier precautions (EBP), creating a risk for cross-contamination. Additionally, the facility failed to process laundry in a clean and sanitary manner and did not ensure laundry staff consistently washed their hands. This failure has the potential to spread infection among the facility's 106 residents. Findings include:1. On 03/23/26 at 3:13 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 3 was observed entering and exiting multiple resident rooms and touching surfaces in the rooms without washing or sanitizing his/her hands between residents' rooms. LPN3 left room [ROOM NUMBER], entered room [ROOM NUMBER], left room [ROOM NUMBER], entered room [ROOM NUMBER], left room [ROOM NUMBER] and entered room [ROOM NUMBER]. The resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was on EBP secondary to having an indwelling catheter. LPN3 was immediately interviewed…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-03-26 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
  Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that food was served at the correct temperature for two residents who received hamburgers (Residents (R) 19 and 90) and food served was palatable in taste for two residents (R 70 and R135). Specifically, the facility did not ensure that dietary staff followed appropriate processes to prepare and serve food palatable for 101 out of census of 106 residents during meal service. This failure had the potential to place residents at increased risk for meal dissatisfaction and the service of potentially unsafe food. Findings include: 1. Review of R70's undated Face Sheet provided by the facility indicated R70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R70's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), located under the MDS tab in the electronic medical record (EMR), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/24/26 indicated R70 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15, which indicated R70 had moderate…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0628 — isolated
  Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
  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 provide residents and their resident representatives (RR) with the required written transfer notice following emergent hospital transfers for two of three residents (Resident (R) 129, and R138) reviewed for hospitalization out of 27 sampled residents. This failure created a risk that residents and their RRs would be uninformed about the reason and location of the transfer and their right to appeal it, if desired. Findings include:1. Review of R129's admission Record, located under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R129 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R129's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/20/26 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was unable to be completed due to R129 rarely being understood. Review of R129's Progress Notes, dated 12/16/25 and located under the Progress Notes tab of the EMR, revealed R129 was, extremely…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0640 — isolated
  Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interviews, and review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure that one resident of 60 residents (Resident (R) 18) reviewed for missing Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments over 120 days old had a tracking discharge assessment completed and transmitted in a timely manner. Failure to complete and transmit MDS data timely can lead to inaccurate federal reimbursement and quality measures. Findings include: Review of R18's admission Record located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 08/24/25. Review of R18's discharge return anticipated MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/24/25, located under the MDS tab in the EMR, indicated that the assessment was batched and accepted on 02/04/26. During an interview on 03/26/26 at 5:00 PM, the MDS Coordinator confirmed that the tracking assessment was late, but he/she was unsure why it was late. The 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure that a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was submitted accurately for one resident (Resident (R) 83) reviewed for MDS assessments out of a total sample of 27 residents. This had the potential to affect quality measures and the resident's care planning process. Findings include:Review of R83's admission Record, located in the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed admission to the facility on [DATE]. Review of R83's Physician Orders located under the Orders, tab in the EMR revealed hospice services were ordered on 07/16/24. Review of R83's quarterly MDS under the MDS tab of the EMR, with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/21/25, revealed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), was unable to be completed due to R83 rarely being understood. Further review revealed the resident was documented not to be receiving hospice care. Review of R83's Physician Orders located under the Orders tab…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0700 — isolated
  Try 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, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents did not have side rails on beds when they had not been assessed for their use for one of four residents (Resident (R) 139) reviewed for side rails out of a total of 27 sampled residents. The lack of appropriate assessment placed residents at risk for unintended restraint and potential side rail entrapment. Findings include:Review of R139's admission Record, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R139 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of weakness. Review of R139's Admission/readmission Evaluation Section-Siderail, completed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2, dated 03/05/26 and located under the Assessments tab in the EMR, revealed side rails were not being considered at the time. Further review revealed no discussion of risks versus benefits and informed consent. Review of R139's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard 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, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain accurate resident medical records, including physician orders and medication administration records (MARs), for one (Resident (R) 132) of five residents reviewed for medication administration and accuracy of medical records. R132 had a duplicate physician order for the same medication, which was transcribed as two separate entries on the resident's MAR. This documentation error created the potential for the medication to be administered more than once as prescribed, placing the resident at risk for medication errors and possible adverse health effects. Findings include:A review of R132's admission Record found under the Profile tab in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R132 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and atrial fibrillation. The resident was discharged from the facility on 07/23/25 to an…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-08-21 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — pattern
  Ensure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
  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 serve all residents a nourishing snack when there was more than a fourteen-hour span of time between the dinner and breakfast mealtimes. This deficient practice was identified for 3 of 3 residents sampled for bedtime snacks (Resident #29, Resident #46, and Resident #65), and was evidenced by the following: A review of the facility's Nourishment Between Meals policy dated reviewed/revised August 2024, included nursing staff are responsible for offering each resident and afternoon and evening snack to the extent medically possible . During initial tour of the kitchen on 8/5/24 at 9:31 AM, the surveyor accompanied by the Dietary General Manager (DGM) observed half sandwiches on a tray in the walk-in refrigerator. The DGM stated the sandwiches were for hour of sleep (HS) snacks. The surveyor asked if all residents received HS snacks, and the DGM stated no, that some residents had physician ordered snacks. On 8/5/24 at 9:50 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Unit…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-08-21 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
  Honor 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 observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to store the resident's urinary drainage bag in a dignified manner. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheter (Resident #15), and was evidenced by the following: A review of the facility's Catheter Care - Foley policy, dated revised August 2024, did not include covering the foley catheter bag with a privacy cover. On 8/5/24 at 10:45 AM, during initial tour of the facility, the surveyor observed Resident #15 in their bedroom sitting in a wheelchair. Resident #15 stated that they had a suprapubic (SP) catheter (flexible tube that is inserted into the bladder through the abdominal wall to drain urine) and wore a leg bag during the day. The resident further stated that at night, the urinary bag was switched to a foley catheter bag (drainage collection bag). On 8/6/24 at 10:13 AM, the surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #15. A review of the admission Record face sheet (an admission summary) reflected that 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

Fines & penalties

$323,570 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $323,570 — penalty dated 2024-08-21

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NJ