Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around April 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of August 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Exceptional Care For Children during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Failure to Follow EBP During Resident Care: Four residents with G/J tubes and/or tracheostomies were care planned for EBP requiring gowns and gloves during close contact care. However, a MD, PA, and RN were observed providing trach assessments and G/J-tube medication administration in the playroom without gowns, and an RN stated staff do not follow EBP during feeding tube care or rounding in common areas.
A resident with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy had diazepam, a Schedule IV controlled substance, sent with a guardian during LOA. When the resident returned, the guardian refused to return 2 unused doses and kept them in her personal bag. Staff documented the missing medication and notified administrative staff, but interviews confirmed law enforcement was not contacted when the controlled medication was not returned.
The facility failed to accurately report the status of four residents in their MDS assessments, particularly regarding ethnicity, race, and anticoagulant use. The inaccuracies were due to a misunderstanding of documentation requirements and incorrect coding practices.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were followed for four sampled residents who had indicators for EBP, including feeding tubes and tracheostomies. The facility policy stated that EBP were implemented for all Exceptional Care for Children residents because all residents had at least one indicator, and that staff were to wear gowns and gloves for all high-contact resident care activities, including device care and use. R13 was care planned for EBP related to a G tube and tracheostomy, with an intervention that gowns and gloves would be worn during close contact interventions. R24 and R21 were also care planned for EBP related to G/J tubes and tracheostomies, with the same gown-and-glove intervention. On observation, the medical doctor and RN evaluated R13 and R24 in the community playroom without gowns while assessing the residents' tracheostomy stomas, ears, and mouths. A PA was observed evaluating R21 in the playroom without a gown while assessing the resident's tracheostomy stoma, ears, and mouth. R27 was care planned for EBP related to a G/J tube and tracheostomy, and an RN was observed administering medications through the G/J tube in the playroom without wearing a gown. An RN later stated that staff do not follow EBP when administering medications through feeding tubes in common areas, and another RN stated that facility staff, including providers, do not follow EBP when rounding or caring for residents in the playroom.
Failure to Notify Law Enforcement After Controlled Medication Was Not Returned
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to have evidence that law enforcement was notified after a controlled medication was not returned to the facility. A resident with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy had an order for diazepam, a Schedule IV controlled substance, to be given every 6 hours as needed for increased spasticity prior to transport. The resident left the facility on leave of absence with a family member/guardian, and the leave agreement stated that any unused medication had to be returned to the facility upon the resident’s return, with 2 doses of diazepam dispensed for the trip. When the resident returned, nursing documentation stated that the guardian refused to return the 2 unused diazepam doses and placed them back into her personal bag. Staff documented that the missing doses were reported to the on-call administrative team and DON, and later notes show staff attempted to contact the guardian and eventually spoke with her about returning the medication. During survey interviews, the NHA stated there was no knowledge of any police report or law enforcement contact, and the DON stated the police were not notified when the guardian refused to return the diazepam.
Inaccurate Resident Assessments and MDS Coding
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately report the status of four residents (R3, R21, R28, R33) in their MDS assessments. Specifically, the facility did not correctly document the residents' ethnicity and race, despite having information available in their clinical records or from family members. For instance, R3's MDS assessment marked the resident as unable to respond for ethnicity and race, even though the facesheet demographics indicated the resident was white. Similarly, R21 was marked as unable to respond, but the facesheet showed the resident was black or African American. R28's MDS assessment also failed to document ethnicity and race, despite the resident's family member providing information about their Middle Eastern descent. R33's MDS assessment inaccurately marked the resident as unable to respond for ethnicity and race, while the facesheet indicated Hispanic, Latino, and/or Spanish origin. An interview with the ADON revealed a misunderstanding of the documentation requirements, contributing to these inaccuracies. Additionally, the facility failed to accurately code R33's quarterly MDS assessment regarding anticoagulant use. The MDS assessment incorrectly documented that R33 was ordered anticoagulants, while the clinical record only showed an order for a Heparin lock flush to manage a vascular access device, which should not be coded as an anticoagulant. This discrepancy indicates a failure to follow the CMS RAI Manual guidelines for coding high-risk drug classes. These findings were reviewed with the NHA, DON, Medical Director, and a representative from the Ombudsman's Office.
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 357 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 10 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 Newark
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newark Manor Nursing Home | 2.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 7 | 0 |
| Jeanne Jugan Residence | 3.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Encore At Parkside | 4.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 30 | 2 |
| Laurelwood Healthcare Center | 4.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 16 | 0 |
| Elkton Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 5.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 52 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Exceptional Care For Children.
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.