Citations in New Jersey
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in New Jersey.
Statistics for New Jersey (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in New Jersey
A resident with schizophrenia, muscle wasting, difficulty walking, and moderate cognitive impairment was discharged home despite prior documentation that their house had no utilities, was in disarray, and had insect infestation. The IDT discussed the need to repair a burst water pipe and relied on the resident’s assurance that repairs would occur, but did not verify that plumbing, heat, or utilities were restored before discharge. Discharge instructions referenced HHA and APS involvement and anticipated HVAC repairs, yet were unsigned, and the HHA later confirmed it had declined the referral and notified the facility. The resident ultimately left via cab without signing the discharge summary, and there was no documented APS referral or confirmation of home safety. After discharge, PD and a social worker found the resident in a home without running water or heat, with limited electricity and expired food, and observed the resident could only descend stairs by scooting on their buttocks, leading to the determination that the facility failed to ensure a safe discharge destination in accordance with its own policy.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, and identified elopement and fall risks exited through a window and was later found on the ground outside with suspected serious injuries, including a possibly fractured leg. Staff documented the unwitnessed fall, transfer to the hospital, and EMS concern for internal injuries after a fall from an estimated 17–18 feet. Despite facility policies requiring reporting of falls, elopements, and potential neglect to appropriate agencies within specified timeframes, the fall with suspected major injury and the elopement were not reported to the state health department because the administrator stated they lacked hospital injury details and did not consider the event an elopement since the resident remained on facility grounds.
A resident with moderately impaired cognition and diagnoses including cellulitis, atelectasis, and muscle weakness was care planned as an elopement risk with a WanderGuard bracelet and interventions such as accompaniment to meals, frequent rounding, and redirection. Despite this, the resident, known to wander and whose photo was posted throughout the facility, was able to leave the building after a WanderGuard alarm sounded at the lobby exit. Surveillance showed the receptionist manually deactivated the alarm without identifying its source, and the resident, dressed in a jacket and carrying envelopes, walked behind the receptionist and exited, appearing as a visitor. Staff interviews revealed that clinical staff believed alarms should not be turned off until the resident was located, while the receptionist reported she had been trained to silence the alarm by entering a code and then visually checking from the desk, contributing to the resident’s undetected elopement.
Surveyors found that meals were not consistently prepared or served according to standardized recipes or the posted menu, resulting in unappealing and unpalatable food. A resident reported not receiving the food listed on their meal ticket and described small portions, while all resident council attendees stated the food was not appealing or palatable. During a sampled lunch, the alternate entrée was missing the listed roasted beets and instead included broccoli, a hair was found in the fish entrée, and the smothered turkey patty was deemed not palatable by surveyors. The FSD confirmed the hair in the fish, had not tasted the turkey patty before service, and stated the patty was premade with gravy prepared from powdered mix, and the facility lacked a policy on food flavor or preparation.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and psychiatric diagnoses, previously assessed as an elopement risk and care‑planned with a Safety Band (SB) on the wheelchair and monitoring of whereabouts, was observed by an LPN in the lobby near the front entrance without the LPN approaching, re‑checking the SB, or notifying other staff before leaving at the end of the shift. The receptionist, trained on the elopement book and SB system, reported not seeing the resident in the lobby and not hearing any SB alarm. During subsequent rounds, staff discovered the resident missing, and the resident was later found off premises by police; hospital staff reported that no SB was on the wheelchair. Facility records and interviews showed that, despite policies requiring SB use, front‑desk identification of elopement‑risk residents, and alarm activation when an SB wearer approached exits, the resident was able to leave the building without staff knowledge, leading surveyors to cite an F689 Immediate Jeopardy deficiency for failure to maintain a safe environment and adequate supervision to prevent elopement.
The facility failed to provide and document routine bathing in accordance with ADL care plans and resident preferences for several cognitively intact and impaired residents with conditions including dementia, schizophrenia, depression, diabetes, heart failure, and spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. One resident who required staff assistance for bathing had only a single documented refusal and no other bathing entries over a month. Another resident requiring assistance had no bathing documented over the same period and no refusals recorded. A third resident had only one bath documented in 30 days, and a fourth had no bathing care plan and no documented baths or refusals. In a group interview, three residents reported they never received more than one bath per week, preferred twice‑weekly baths, and described long intervals without bathing, with one stating they believed they smelled and another reporting a family member had to take them home to bathe. Facility leadership confirmed they could not locate documentation showing consistent bathing according to resident preferences.
Failure to Ensure Safe Discharge Home for Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a safe and appropriate discharge home for a resident with schizophrenia, muscle wasting, difficulty walking, and moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS 11/15). The resident had been admitted from an inpatient psychiatric facility after being found by neighbors living in deplorable conditions at home, including a burst water pipe causing water to leak from the house, utilities turned off, the house in complete disarray, and insect infestation. Hospital psychological and social services documentation noted the resident was disheveled, malodorous, had not showered in five years due to fear of slipping, had poor functional status, and had no insight into their condition or deterioration. The facility’s own Social Services Assessment reiterated that the resident’s home had no electricity or water and was in deplorable condition prior to admission. During the stay, the resident’s care plan documented a goal to return to the community and interventions to evaluate and discuss prognosis for independent or assisted living, including identifying and addressing limitations, risks, and needs for maximum independence. The Social Services Director (SSD) and Administrator discussed with the resident the need to fix the broken water pipe before discharge and delayed discharge for the resident to arrange repair. The DON reported receiving a call from the local police department (PD) stating the building was no longer red taped and that the resident could go home anytime if the water pipe was fixed, but this conversation was not documented in the electronic medical record. The SSD stated that the resident was adamant the house was safe to return to and that she arranged home health care and transportation for discharge, relying on the resident’s report that repairs would occur on the day of discharge. The facility did not verify that the water pipe or utilities had actually been repaired or that the home environment was safe before discharge. On the day of discharge, the discharge instructions indicated the resident was to go home via ambulette, that a home health agency (HHA) and Adult Protective Services (APS) would be called for home care, and that an HVAC company would be on-site for repairs the next day per the resident. The discharge instructions were not signed by a nurse or the resident. A progress note documented that the resident left the facility via cab, left before signing the discharge summary, and that attempts to contact the resident afterward were unsuccessful. The HHA later confirmed that it had declined the referral and had notified the facility by email, meaning no home health services were in place. APS confirmed that the conversation with the SSD was not a formal referral and that there was no open APS case or follow-up visit. After discharge, the local PD and a social worker hired by the PD found the resident at home with no running water, no working heat, limited electricity, expired food, and unable to walk down the stairs except by scooting on their buttocks. The PD subsequently contacted the facility questioning why the resident had been discharged home under those conditions. The facility’s own policy required that discharge destinations meet health and safety needs, that unsafe settings be treated similarly to refusal of care with documentation of options offered, and that AMA and APS referral procedures be followed when appropriate; these requirements were not met in this case, leading to the cited deficiency for failure to ensure a safe discharge.
Failure to Report Fall With Injury and Elopement to State Authorities
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report to the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) a fall with injury and an elopement involving a cognitively impaired resident. The resident had diagnoses including follicular lymphoma, schizophrenia, and auditory hallucinations, and a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment showed severely impaired cognition. An Elopement/Wandering Risk Assessment identified the resident as an elopement risk, and the care plan documented wandering, elopement risk related to impaired safety awareness, and risk for falls due to deconditioning and gait and balance problems, with interventions such as structured activities, walking inside and outside, use of an elopement alarm, and education on safety and what to do if a fall occurred. On the date of the incident, a progress note by the DON documented that the resident had a fall and was transferred to the hospital. A Resident Accident/Incident Report recorded that nursing staff could not find the resident in the room or dayroom, then observed the resident’s window screen removed and the window open, and found the resident outside on the ground. The fall was documented as unwitnessed, the extent of injuries was unknown at that time, and the resident was transferred to the hospital. A township police department Investigation Report indicated EMS suspected internal injuries and requested helicopter transport due to suspected serious injuries, and documented that the height from the resident’s window to the ground was between 17 and 18 feet. In an interview, an RN stated that during rounds with the ADON, the resident was not seen, and after searching other rooms, the ADON called out to call 911; the RN then saw the open window and the resident on the ground outside, noting one leg appeared shorter than the other, which she stated could indicate a broken leg. The LNHA acknowledged that falls with major injuries should be reported to NJDOH but stated the fall was not reported because the facility was unable to obtain information from the hospital on the extent of the injuries. The LNHA also stated the exit through the window was not reported as an elopement because the resident did not leave facility grounds. Facility policies on falls, elopement and wandering, incidents and accidents, and compliance with reporting allegations of abuse/neglect/exploitation required reporting of falls, elopements, and incidents that may constitute neglect to appropriate agencies within prescribed timeframes, including immediate notification to appropriate agencies no later than two hours after discovery or forming suspicion, but the fall with suspected serious injury and the elopement event were not reported to NJDOH as required.
Failure to Prevent Elopement of Identified Wander-Risk Resident Despite WanderGuard System
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to maintain a safe environment and provide adequate supervision to prevent an elopement by a resident identified as an elopement risk. The resident was admitted with diagnoses including cellulitis of the abdominal wall, atelectasis, and muscle weakness, and had a BIMS score of 8/15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The resident’s care plan, initiated shortly after admission, identified elopement risk related to new admission/change of environment and included interventions such as use of a Wanderguard on the left wrist, accompanying the resident to meals and activities, checking placement and function of the security bracelet, and engaging the resident in activities and conversation to keep them occupied. Despite these planned interventions, the resident was able to leave the facility without staff knowledge. On the date of the incident, the facility’s FRE to the state documented that the resident eloped, triggering a Code Grey for a missing resident. Review of surveillance footage by the Administrator and Environmental Services Director showed that the WanderGuard alarm system activated and that the receptionist manually reset the alarm when no one was visible in the immediate lobby area. After the code was entered to disengage the alarm, the resident appeared from behind the receptionist, dressed in a jacket and carrying large envelopes, and exited through the door, presenting as a visitor. The resident later reported to the surveyor that they had “escaped,” walked out, and walked home, stating they made sure not to get caught, although they did not recall all details. The facility subsequently contacted the resident at home and a staff member escorted the resident back. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistent understanding and practices regarding the WanderGuard system and response to alarms. CNAs, an LPN, and an RN described the resident as a known wanderer and elopement risk whose picture was posted throughout the facility, and they stated that staff would respond to WanderGuard alarms by locating the resident and redirecting them. The ADON and DON stated that policy and expectation were that staff should locate the source of the alarm before deactivating it, and that it was not policy to manually turn off the alarm before the resident was located. In contrast, the receptionist reported that her practice, and how she had been trained, was to type in the code to stop the alarm when it sounded, look around from the front desk, and only if she could not locate the source would she check outside visually from her position and notify leadership, stating she could not leave the front desk. The LNHA acknowledged that surveillance footage showed the receptionist deactivating the alarm without identifying the source, and that the resident, who often sat in the Magnolia lounge near the lobby sensors, went behind the receptionist and left the building while appearing to be a visitor. Further observations by the surveyor showed that when a WanderGuard was activated near the Magnolia lounge, the alarm could not be heard until entering the lobby area, and that the alarm disengaged when the device was moved away from the sensor. In another test with the LNHA, the alarm did not shut off until a manual code was entered. On a separate occasion, the surveyor observed the resident sitting in the Magnolia lounge triggering the WanderGuard alarm, which stopped once the resident was redirected away from the area. The facility’s written policy on wandering and elopements stated that the facility would identify residents at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment. Despite this policy and the resident’s identified elopement risk and care plan interventions, the resident was able to exit the facility undetected after the receptionist manually disengaged the alarm without confirming the source, resulting in the resident’s elopement.
Failure to Provide Palatable, Menu-Compliant Meals Using Standardized Recipes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that standardized recipes were utilized to prepare food in a manner that conserved nutritive value and flavor, and failed to provide palatable and appealing meals as listed on the menu. A resident reported dissatisfaction with the food, stating they did not receive the items listed on their meal ticket and that portion sizes were small. During a resident council meeting, all five members present stated that the food was not appealing and not palatable. The facility’s Food Service Director (FSD) explained that the menu was a set daily menu with a main and alternate entrée, and that the computer system generated resident meal tickets based on diet orders, with any changes or alternates requested through the resident’s nurse. The posted menu for the observed week specified particular items for the main and alternate lunch meals. When surveyors obtained a sample lunch tray containing both the main entrée and the alternate entrée, they observed that the alternate meal did not match the posted menu: the roasted beets listed were not served and broccoli florets were substituted instead. While tasting the main entrée of lemon butter baked fish filet, a surveyor observed a small black curled hair in the fish. Two surveyors tasted the smothered turkey patty and were unable to consume it, noting that the flavor profile did not meet expected standards of palatability. In a subsequent interview, the FSD confirmed the presence of hair in the fish and acknowledged that hair should not be in the food. The FSD also stated she had not tasted the smothered turkey patty prior to service and, upon tasting it at the surveyors’ request, stated she thought it was good. She reported that the turkey patty was premade and the gravy was made from a powdered mix with added water. The facility did not provide a policy related to the flavor or preparation of foods.
Elopement of High‑Risk Resident Due to Inadequate Supervision and Safety Band Oversight
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide a safe environment and adequate supervision to prevent the elopement of a resident who had been identified as an elopement risk. The resident had diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and anxiety disorder, and a recent MDS showed a severely impaired cognitive status with a BIMs score of 7/15. An elopement assessment documented that the resident became impatient when waiting to be picked up, self‑propelled toward doors, and had exit‑seeking behavior at times. On the day prior to the incident, nursing documentation noted restlessness, poor impulse control, impatience, and self‑propelling toward the door while expressing a desire to go out front, leading to placement of a Safety Band (SB) on the back of the wheelchair and a care plan focus identifying the resident as an elopement risk with interventions including SB use and monitoring of whereabouts. On the day of the elopement, an LPN assigned to the resident on the 7 AM–3 PM shift documented on the Treatment Administration Record that the SB on the back of the wheelchair had been checked for placement. The LPN later stated in interview that she was aware of the resident’s elopement risk and that interventions included monitoring and redirecting the resident when exit‑seeking behaviors were observed. At approximately 3 PM, the LPN observed the resident seated in a wheelchair in the main lobby near the front door but did not approach the resident, did not verify the presence of the SB on the wheelchair at that time, and did not notify other staff that the resident was in the lobby near the front entrance. The LPN then left the facility at the end of her shift. The receptionist on duty, who had been trained on the Elopement Book and SB system and was responsible for observing for wandering residents near exits, reported that she did not see the resident in the lobby at that time and did not hear the SB alarm. According to the facility’s own incident documentation, the resident was last seen by staff in the first‑floor lobby at approximately 3 PM. During rounds at approximately 3:15 PM, staff on the 3–11 shift discovered that the resident was not in the room and initiated a search. The DON and local police were notified at about 3:20 PM. Police later located the resident in the neighborhood near the facility and transported the resident to the hospital for evaluation. Information obtained by the LPN unit manager from hospital staff indicated that the SB was not on the resident’s wheelchair when the resident arrived at the hospital. Facility leadership concluded, based on staff reports and the absence of the SB on the wheelchair at the hospital, that the SB must have been removed prior to the resident exiting the facility. The SB alarm system itself was reported by maintenance to be functioning properly based on testing before and after the incident. These actions and inactions resulted in the resident leaving the facility without staff knowledge, constituting a failure to implement interventions to maintain a safe environment with adequate supervision to prevent elopement. The facility’s policies on resident elopement and SB use required that residents at risk for elopement be identified, care plans updated after elopement attempts, and interventions implemented by the interdisciplinary team. The SB policy specified that SB placement would aid in elopement prevention, that names and photos of all residents at risk for elopement would be kept in a log at the front desk, and that an alarm would activate if a resident wearing an SB attempted to leave through monitored exits. Despite these policies, the resident, who had been assessed and care‑planned as an elopement risk and ordered to have an SB on the wheelchair with checks each shift, was able to be in the lobby near the front door without effective staff intervention or alarm activation, and subsequently left the facility undetected until discovered missing during shift rounds. The surveyors determined that this failure placed the resident and all residents at risk and constituted an Immediate Jeopardy situation under F689. The facility’s failure to provide a safe environment and adequate supervision to prevent the resident from leaving the facility without staff knowledge placed this resident as well as all residents at risk for elopement, at risk of likelihood of serious harm, injury, impairment, or death.
Failure to Provide and Document Routine Bathing per ADL Care Plans and Resident Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide and document bathing assistance for multiple residents in accordance with their ADL care plans and stated preferences. Facility policy required that residents receive assistance with ADLs, including bathing, every shift as appropriate. For one resident with dementia and a history of stroke who was severely cognitively impaired and required staff assistance for bathing and grooming, the ADL care plan indicated staff participation for bathing and did not note routine refusals. However, ADL documentation over a 30‑day period showed only one recorded bathing refusal and no other entries indicating that the resident had been bathed or had refused additional bathing during that time. Another resident with schizophrenia and depression, who was cognitively intact and required staff assistance with bathing, had an ADL care plan requiring staff participation with bathing and no indication of a tendency to refuse. Review of 30 days of ADL documentation revealed no evidence that this resident had been bathed and no recorded refusals. A third cognitively intact resident with type 2 diabetes and heart failure had an ADL care plan requiring staff participation with bathing, but ADL documentation showed only one bath in the most recent 30 days and no refusals. A fourth cognitively intact resident with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy had no bathing care plan in the record, and 30 days of ADL documentation contained no evidence of any baths or refusals. During a group interview, three cognitively intact residents reported they never received more than one bath per week and had not been bathed according to their preferences, which were to be bathed twice weekly. One resident stated they had just been bathed but had not received a bath for three weeks prior and believed they smelled due to the lack of regular bathing. Another resident reported it had been two weeks since the last bath and that a family member had taken them home to bathe a few days earlier. A third resident reported not having received a bath in a while. In an interview, the administrator, assistant administrator, and DON confirmed that documentation could not be located to show that these residents had been consistently bathed according to their preferences and acknowledged that the expectation was for consistent bathing with documentation of care and any refusals.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in New Jersey — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in New Jersey
Data through Mar 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 against the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 26, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
