Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around December 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Optima Care Harborview during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with a known Candida auris (C. auris) diagnosis, who had previously stayed at the facility and lived nearby, was denied readmission after referral from a hospital. The referral system recorded the denial reason as "Medical," which the Regional Admission Director later clarified meant C. auris, despite CDC and state guidance stating that most facilities can care for C. auris-positive individuals and should not deny admission based solely on that diagnosis. Interviews with the IP/ADON, LNHA, and Regional Nurse confirmed that the facility already cared for residents on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and contact precautions, had appropriate protocols and supplies, and recognized that C. auris is managed with contact precautions. Bed availability records showed multiple open beds, including private rooms, at the time of the referral, yet the resident was directed instead to a sister facility with a dedicated C. auris unit, resulting in a denial of admission that conflicted with regulatory guidance and the facility’s own infection control policies.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and behavioral issues continued to receive care from an LPN after the family requested the nurse's removal from the care team. Despite the family's request, facility records showed the LPN continued to provide care, and leadership could not provide documentation or explanation for not honoring the preference, contrary to the facility's resident rights policy.
A facility failed to notify a resident's family about a new unstageable pressure sore on the resident's left heel after readmission. Despite the facility's policy, there was no documentation of notification, and the family member was unaware of the condition. The MDS/Care Plan Coordinator recalled discussing the issue, but it was not documented in the meeting notes.
A resident who required assistance for transfers was found to have a right femur fracture after complaining of leg pain following a transfer. The facility's investigation into the incident was incomplete, as it did not include interviews with all staff involved in the resident's transfers on the day of the incident. Only the two CNAs who assisted with the transfer before the resident's appointment were interviewed, leaving gaps in the investigation process.
The facility failed to accurately complete PASARR Level I Assessments for two residents, potentially delaying necessary services. One resident's assessment incorrectly indicated no mental illness despite diagnoses of major depressive disorder and anxiety, while another resident's assessment was incomplete, missing responses related to mental illness despite a history of psychiatric hospitalization.
A resident with a known fish allergy was served fish for lunch despite the allergy being noted on their meal ticket and care plan. The resident consumed some of the fish and requested hospital care after experiencing facial redness. Staff interviews revealed that the meal ticket system identified the allergy correctly, but the meal was plated incorrectly, and there was no policy to ensure meal accuracy.
Improper Denial of Admission for C. auris-Positive Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to comply with Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards by denying admission to a referred resident based solely on a diagnosis of Candida auris (C. auris). CDC guidance dated 4/24/24 states that transmission-based precautions (TBP) and enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for C. auris are similar to those used for other multidrug-resistant organisms and that most facilities equipped to care for MDROs can also care for patients with C. auris. New Jersey Department of Health guidance dated 3/24/23 further specifies that most healthcare facilities can provide adequate care for C. auris-positive individuals and therefore should not deny admission based upon a C. auris diagnosis. Despite these directives, the facility’s referral list showed that one referred resident was denied admission, with the reason documented as “Medical,” which the Regional Admission Director later clarified was due to C. auris. The resident in question had a prior admission at the facility, had been referred again from a nearby hospital, and lived in the vicinity of the facility. The Regional Admission Director explained that referrals are reviewed by an outside clinical team and the in-house admissions team, including the LNHA, and that the denial reason “Medical” in this case meant the resident had C. auris. He stated the facility did not have a dedicated C. auris unit and cited infection control and lack of isolation as the basis for the denial. However, the Infection Preventionist/Assistant DON reported that the facility admits residents on EBP and contact precautions, that staff are knowledgeable in caring for residents on these precautions, and that the facility had policies for EBP and contact precautions. The facility’s own EBP policy indicated that a private room is not required, and its infection prevention and control program policy recognized contact precautions as one of the established transmission-based precautions. Further review showed that on the date relevant to the referral, the facility had numerous available beds, including multiple private rooms on several floors. The LNHA described the admission process as involving review of referrals by an outside clinical team and the in-house admissions team, with final decisions made on a case-by-case basis, typically denying residents deemed not appropriate such as those on ventilators. When questioned, the LNHA and Regional Nurse acknowledged that the facility had residents on EBP and contact precautions, that staff could meet the needs of such residents, and that C. auris is managed with contact precautions. The Regional Nurse also stated that another affiliated facility had a dedicated C. auris isolation unit and that the resident was directed there, while acknowledging that at the time “we did not really accept C. auris,” despite having EBP and contact precaution protocols in place. When asked why the resident was denied admission under these circumstances, the LNHA, DON, and Regional Nurse did not provide a response, establishing that the denial was inconsistent with CDC and NJ DOH guidance and the facility’s own policies.
Failure to Accommodate Resident's Preference for Care Team Assignment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's preference regarding their care team by not removing a specific nurse from the resident's care, despite a request from the resident's family member. The family member had asked on 4/11/25 for a particular LPN to be removed from the resident's care team, but records showed that the LPN continued to administer medications and perform assessments for the resident after this date. The resident in question had severe cognitive impairment, as indicated by a BIMS score of zero, and a history of behavioral problems, including refusing care and aggression toward staff. Interviews with facility leadership revealed that there was no clear documentation or explanation as to why the LPN was not removed from the resident's care team following the family's request. The Director of Nursing stated that the usual procedure would involve a meeting with the family to discuss concerns, but could not provide further information about this specific case. The facility's policy on resident rights, which includes the right to reasonable accommodation of needs and preferences, was reviewed but not followed in this instance.
Failure to Notify Family of Resident's Pressure Sore
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to notify the representative of a resident about a significant change in the resident's skin condition. The resident, who had a history of atherosclerotic heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, severe aortic stenosis, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and dementia, was readmitted to the facility with a new unstageable pressure sore on the left heel. Despite the facility's policy requiring notification of significant changes, there was no documentation that the resident's family member was informed about this new pressure area. The deficiency was identified during a review of the resident's records and interviews with the family member and facility staff. The family member stated they were unaware of the pressure sore on the left heel, and the facility's records did not show any notification to the family. Although the MDS/Care Plan Coordinator recalled discussing the wound with the family during an IDT meeting, the meeting notes did not document this discussion. This lack of documentation and communication led to the deficiency being cited.
Incomplete Investigation of Alleged Staff Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an alleged incident of staff neglect involving a resident who required assistance for transfers. The resident, who was admitted to the facility and required staff assistance for transfers, was transferred by staff on the morning of the incident before a scheduled podiatrist appointment. After returning from the appointment, the resident complained of pain in the right leg and was subsequently diagnosed with a right femur fracture at the hospital. The family reported that the resident mentioned being dropped during a transfer by staff, which was not thoroughly investigated by the facility. The facility's investigation, dated a few days after the incident, did not include interviews with all staff involved in the resident's transfers on the morning of the incident. Only the two certified nurse aides who assisted with the transfer before the resident's appointment were identified and interviewed. The Administrator acknowledged that the investigation was incomplete, as not all staff involved in the transfers were interviewed. The Administrator also mentioned a belief that the fracture might have been caused by the weight of the resident's braces, but confirmed that a thorough investigation should have included interviews with all staff involved in the transfers.
Inaccurate PASARR Assessments for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure accurate completion of the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level I Assessment for two residents, which could potentially delay necessary services. Resident 108 was admitted with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and hallucinations. Despite these diagnoses, her PASARR Level I Assessment incorrectly indicated no mental illness, and a Level II assessment was not pursued. The Social Services Director acknowledged the error, noting that a former employee completed the assessment inaccurately. Resident 79 was admitted with major depressive disorder and schizoaffective disorder. The PASARR Level I Assessment for this resident was incomplete, as it did not address questions related to mental illness, despite the resident's history of psychiatric hospitalization. The Social Services Director admitted that the PASARR was not reviewed for accuracy, and the Psychiatric Doctor confirmed the resident's history of inpatient psychiatric care. The facility did not ensure the PASARR was complete and accurate, which was acknowledged by the staff.
Failure to Accommodate Resident's Food Allergy
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food that accommodated a resident's allergies, specifically for a resident with a known allergy to fish. The resident, who was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, was served fish for lunch despite having an allergy noted in their care plan and on their meal ticket. The resident consumed some of the fish and subsequently requested to go to the hospital after experiencing some redness on the face. The Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed that the resident was given Benadryl and later prednisone before being sent to the hospital. Interviews with facility staff, including the Assistant Director of Nursing, a Registered Nurse, the Dietary Manager, and the Assistant Dietary Manager, revealed that the resident's meal ticket correctly identified the fish allergy and an alternate meal was specified. However, the resident was still served the incorrect meal. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the error and noted that the meal ticket system had functioned correctly, but the meal was not plated accurately. The Assistant Dietary Manager admitted that there was no policy or procedure in place to ensure the accuracy of meal plating and that residents receive the correct meals.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 1,222 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 15 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Jersey City
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hoboken University Medical Center Tcu | 0.6 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Alaris Health At Hamilton Park | 0.8 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Peace Care St Joseph's | 0.9 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Optima Care Castle Hill | 2 mi | — | 2 | 1 |
| Manhattanview Ctr For Rehabilitation And Healthcar | 2.3 mi | — | 6 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Optima Care Harborview.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.