Below average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Abingdon Care & Rehabilitation Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not maintain a qualified full-time SW despite being licensed for 180 beds, as required by CMS guidelines and state regulations. The LNHA and HRD reported that the full-time SW position had been vacant for several months, with only a part-time or per diem SW providing limited hours before also leaving shortly before the survey. Timecard records showed very low SW hours over multiple pay periods, confirming the lack of full-time coverage. The facility’s own SW job description emphasized responsibility for ensuring residents’ medically related emotional and social needs were met, highlighting the significance of the vacancy.
The facility failed to provide adequate medically related social services, including psychosocial support after an abuse allegation and assistance with discharge planning and community resources. A resident with dementia and mobility dependence was allegedly treated roughly by a CNA during a transfer, but there was no documentation that social services monitored the resident’s psychosocial status as required by facility policy. Another resident with intact cognition, diabetic complications, neuropathy, and an amputation repeatedly requested help from a SW to obtain a phone and community housing, but received limited and partly incorrect assistance and could not complete provided forms due to neuropathy. A third cognitively intact resident with complex medical conditions and a stated goal of community discharge reported a difficult discharge process, and the family stated there was no SW involvement or family meeting, with family members performing most discharge arrangements and no SS progress notes documenting discharge planning.
A resident with dementia, muscle weakness, and dependence on staff for transfers reported back pain and requested to return to bed, and an insurance case worker later alleged that a CNA handled the resident roughly during the transfer, with the resident saying "ow." Although the CNA was suspended during the investigation and the allegation was ultimately unsubstantiated, the resident’s care plan was only updated with a vague focus on documented concerns and generic nursing and Social Services notifications, without clear goals or specific interventions related to the abuse allegation. The UM and RDON acknowledged that the care plan did not clearly address the allegation as required by facility policy for individualized, revised care plans.
A nurse left a resident's medications unattended at the bedside while searching for eyedrops, in violation of facility policy and standard nursing practice. The resident, who had multiple chronic conditions and intact cognition, was not supervised during medication administration, and staff confirmed that medications should never be left at the bedside.
Surveyors found that menus were not consistently reviewed by the RD for nutritional adequacy, and multiple meals did not meet the required protein content. Residents reported limited food choices, poor quality, and inconsistent availability of menu items and alternates. Observations confirmed that some meals and substitutes, such as hot dogs and grilled cheese, did not provide adequate protein, and bread products were sometimes unavailable, leading to further substitutions.
The facility did not consistently provide or document nourishing evening snacks for residents when the interval between dinner and breakfast exceeded 14 hours. Labeled snacks were inconsistently distributed by CNAs, and there was no accountability system in place to track snack provision or refusals. Residents reported that snacks left at the nurse's station were sometimes taken by others, and no extra snacks were available for those without labeled items. Staff interviews and review of facility documents confirmed the lack of a formal process or policy for evening snack distribution and documentation.
Surveyors identified multiple failures in food storage and kitchen sanitation, including unclean equipment, improper storage of utensils and food items, and inadequate maintenance of kitchen facilities. The Food Service Director acknowledged issues such as debris buildup, broken equipment, and improper food handling practices, all of which were inconsistent with facility policies.
Surveyors observed overflowing and uncovered dumpsters, an uncovered and overflowing cardboard container, and a compactor with liquid buildup underneath, with debris scattered around the dumpster area. Staff interviews revealed confusion about responsibility for maintaining cleanliness, and facility policy required maintenance of all areas, including the parking lot.
Surveyors identified multiple environmental deficiencies, including dirty and damaged heater units, cracked and missing floor tiles, stained ceiling tiles, leaking ceilings, and damaged handrails and elevator surfaces. These issues were not consistently tracked in the maintenance system, and staff interviews revealed gaps in reporting and repair processes. Facility leadership acknowledged ongoing challenges with building repairs and maintenance prioritization.
Surveyors found that controlled substances, including opioids and benzodiazepines, were not properly accounted for, stored, or documented. Medications for discharged or deceased residents were left unsecured and not removed from inventory, and required records were missing or inaccurate. Staff were unaware of the presence of these drugs, and shift-to-shift counts did not include them. Additionally, medication administration and destruction records for controlled substances were incomplete or incorrect, with missing witness signatures and discrepancies in inventory counts.
A facility licensed for 180 beds did not employ a full-time social worker for several months, instead relying on a part-time social worker who worked limited weekend hours while holding a full-time position elsewhere. Multiple residents voiced concerns about the lack of social work services, and staff confirmed that key social work responsibilities were handled by other departments during this period.
The facility did not consistently post the required daily nurse staffing report in visible locations. During the absence of the staffing coordinator, no one was assigned to ensure the report was posted, and the Director of Nursing was unclear about who should be responsible. This resulted in several days where the staffing information was not available as required by facility policy.
The facility did not ensure the Infection Preventionist (IP) attended two required QAPI meetings, as confirmed by review of sign-in sheets and administrator interview. The IP's absence was not documented as excused, and there was no evidence that infection control topics were reviewed during those meetings, contrary to facility policy.
Staff failed to use Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during wound care for a resident with open wounds, as neither a gown nor appropriate signage was used. Both a CNA and an LPN provided care using only gloves, contrary to facility policy requiring gown and gloves for high-contact care activities involving wounds. Interviews revealed staff misunderstanding of EBP requirements, and the Infection Preventionist confirmed EBP should have been in place.
Surveyors observed an ongoing fly infestation in the kitchen, with flies coming from an open floor drain near a grease trap. The FSD acknowledged the issue and stated that exterminator treatments had not resolved it due to the open drain. Pest control logs and invoices lacked documentation of specific treatments for flies, and key staff, including the DES and Regional Property Manager, were unaware of the problem. Facility policies required pest control, but work orders and records did not address the fly issue.
Failure to Maintain Required Full-Time Social Worker Coverage in a Large Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to employ a qualified full-time Social Worker (SW) despite being licensed for 180 beds, which exceeds the 120-bed threshold requiring a full-time SW under CMS guidelines implemented on 11/28/17 and N.J.A.C. 8:39-39.3(a); 39.2. During the survey entrance conference, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) stated that the facility did not have a full-time SW and that the part-time SW had left approximately two weeks earlier. The Human Resources Director (HRD) later confirmed that the facility had no full-time SW for the last five months and that, after the full-time SW left, a part-time or per diem SW worked up to 30 hours per week before also leaving two weeks prior to the survey. The LNHA reviewed a Director of Social Work job posting dated 08/16/2024 with the surveyor and stated that it was around that time the facility lost its full-time SW, acknowledging that the facility should have a full-time SW to meet residents' needs. Timecard records for the SW showed minimal hours worked in successive pay periods from mid-November 2025 through late January 2026, with hours ranging from 4.25 to 8.92 per pay period, demonstrating that social work coverage was far below full-time. The facility’s own SW job description specified that the position’s primary purpose was to assist in planning, organizing, and developing the Social Services Department to ensure that residents’ medically related emotional and social needs were met on an individual basis, underscoring the gap created by the absence of a full-time SW.
Failure to Provide Needed Social Services, Abuse-Related Support, and Discharge Planning
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide medically related social services to residents who required assistance with outside services and psychosocial support. Resident council minutes from late 2025 showed residents asking when a social worker would be available, and later notes indicated that a part‑time social worker was only in the facility a few days a week, with the LNHA, DON, and ADON expected to help if residents needed anything. At the time of survey, the LNHA reported that the part‑time social worker had left about two weeks earlier and that there was no current social worker in place, despite the facility’s own job description stating that the social worker is responsible for ensuring residents’ medically related emotional and social needs are met. One resident with dementia, muscle weakness, and dependence on staff for transfers reported back pain and requested to return to bed. An insurance case worker later reported that a CNA had been rough with this resident during the transfer, and the CNA was suspended pending investigation. Facility policy required that, when abuse is reported, the LNHA or designee request that social services monitor the resident’s psychosocial status in response to the incident and investigation. However, the documentation related to this incident did not show that social services monitored the resident’s psychosocial status, and the LNHA confirmed that the resident was not seen by social services after the abuse allegation. Another resident with intact cognition, multiple complications of Type 1 diabetes, an amputation, and generalized weakness had expressed a desire to leave the facility and live in the community. This resident requested assistance from a social worker for obtaining a phone and community housing and reported having asked for such help since September 2025. A grievance documented that the Regional Admissions Director, rather than social services, met with the resident and provided some contact information, but the resident stated that the corporate social worker gave incorrect resource information and forms the resident could not complete due to neuropathy, and the resident was not comfortable having other staff complete them. A third resident, also cognitively intact and with significant medical conditions and a stated goal of community discharge, reported that the discharge process was difficult and that they could not speak to the proper people to arrange discharge. The resident’s family member stated there was no meeting with family or discussion with a social worker about discharge, and that family had to handle most discharge arrangements, while no social services progress notes related to discharge planning were provided.
Failure to Clearly Update Care Plan After Abuse Allegation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update the care plan with a clear focus, goals, and interventions for a resident involved in a staff-to-resident abuse allegation. The resident had diagnoses including other lack of coordination, muscle weakness, need for assistance with personal care, and unspecified dementia without behavioral, psychotic, mood, or anxiety disturbances. A quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 9/15, indicating moderately impaired cognition, and documented that the resident was dependent on a helper for transfers from sitting to standing and from chair to bed. Progress notes indicated that the resident complained of back pain and requested to be returned to bed, and staff assisted the resident back to bed. An undated facility document showed that an insurance case worker reported that a CNA was rough with the resident during the transfer to bed and that the resident was saying "ow" during the transfer. The CNA was suspended pending investigation, and the allegation of rough handling was later determined to be unsubstantiated. Review of the resident’s care plan revealed a focus labeled "Documented Resident/Representative Concerns" initiated on the same date as the incident, with interventions limited to the nurse identifying the area of concern, notifying appropriate department leaders per protocol, and notifying Social Services of the concern and possible need for a care conference. The Unit Manager stated that after an abuse allegation, the resident’s care plan should be updated so staff know that allegations were made and what to do, and that he or the DON typically updated care plans. The Regional DON stated that the care plan update for this resident did not meet her expectations and that the issue being addressed was not clear, which did not align with the facility’s policy requiring individualized care plans with measurable objectives and revisions as the resident’s condition dictates.
Medications Left Unattended at Bedside by LPN
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a nurse failed to administer medications according to acceptable standards of nursing practice for one resident. The resident, who had diagnoses including atherosclerosis of native arteries with ulceration, muscle weakness, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, was cognitively intact as indicated by a perfect BIMS score. On the date in question, the nurse left the resident's medications unattended at the bedside while searching for the resident's eyedrops, contrary to facility policy and standard nursing protocols. This action was confirmed by multiple staff interviews, including the nurse involved, the unit manager, and the director of nursing, all of whom stated that medications should never be left at the bedside under any circumstances. The facility's policy on medication administration requires that medications be administered safely, timely, and as prescribed, with nurses expected to verify resident identity, check orders, educate residents about their medications, and remain with the resident until the medication is taken. The nurse's deviation from this process by leaving medications at the bedside was identified as a failure to follow both facility policy and professional standards, as it prevented assurance that the resident actually took the medication as intended.
Failure to Provide Nutritionally Adequate Menus and Consistent Meal Options
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that its menus met the nutritional needs of residents, as required by regulations and the facility's own dietary manual. The Registered Dietitian (RD) did not consistently review and approve the four-week cycle menus for nutritional adequacy, and there was a lack of documentation confirming that all menu cycles were reviewed. The Food Service Director (FSD) and RD were unable to confirm the process for menu development and review, and the FSD did not have access to the diet manual. The menus provided only one meal option for lunch and dinner, and the Always Available list was not consistently accessible to residents. Several menu items and alternates, such as hot dogs and grilled cheese, did not provide the required minimum of 3 oz. (21 gms) of protein per meal, with some meals providing as little as 6 gms of protein. The FSD and RD acknowledged that these protein amounts were inadequate, and invoices and nutritional information confirmed that multiple meals throughout the cycle did not meet protein requirements. Residents reported limited food choices, poor food quality, and inconsistent availability of menu items and alternates, including bread and buns for sandwiches. During interviews and group meetings, residents expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of variety and the nutritional inadequacy of certain meals, such as fish patties, chicken patties, burgers, and meatballs. One resident specifically requested breakfast meat daily but did not consistently receive it, and when alternate items were requested, they were not always available or nutritionally equivalent. Observations confirmed that residents sometimes received substitutes, such as hot dogs or sandwiches, that did not meet protein requirements, and that bread products were sometimes unavailable, leading to substitutions like serving hot dogs on regular bread instead of buns. The facility's documentation, including food purchase invoices and nutritional labels, supported the findings that several menu items did not meet the required protein content. The RD and FSD acknowledged that some prepared products used did not meet protein requirements, and that recipes provided for review did not always match the products actually served. The dietary manual specified that regular diet portion sizes for protein at lunch and dinner should be 3 oz., but this standard was not consistently met. The deficiency was further corroborated by resident council feedback and direct observations by surveyors.
Failure to Provide and Document Evening Snacks for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents received and were properly documented as having received a nourishing evening snack when there was more than a 14-hour span between dinner and breakfast. During a kitchen tour, the Food Service Director confirmed that evening snacks were not routinely sent, and there was no list of residents receiving snacks. Instead, labeled snacks were provided only if requested before the kitchen closed, and after hours, snacks could be accessed by a supervisor with a key. Review of the facility's mealtime schedule confirmed that the interval between dinner and breakfast exceeded 14 hours. Resident council meeting participants, all of whom were alert and oriented, reported that labeled snacks were inconsistently distributed by CNAs, and when left unattended at the nurse's station, snacks were sometimes taken by other residents. There were no additional snacks available for residents without labeled snacks. Interviews with nursing staff and the unit manager revealed that there was no accountability system, either in the electronic medical record or on paper, to track the provision of evening snacks or to document refusals. The Registered Dietitian and Food Service Director both acknowledged the need for snacks when the meal interval exceeded 14 hours and agreed that accountability was lacking. Review of previous resident council meeting minutes showed ongoing reports that CNAs did not distribute snacks as intended. The facility was unable to provide policies related to mealtimes and evening snacks.
Deficient Food Storage and Unsanitary Kitchen Conditions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store potentially hazardous foods properly and did not maintain kitchen equipment in a sanitary manner, as evidenced by multiple observations during a kitchen tour with the Food Service Director (FSD). Issues included a reddish substance inside the ice machine, built-up debris in a refrigerator, heavy buildup on an exhaust fan, a broken and melted spatula in a prep sink, a soiled rag draped over a sink divider, and a black sticky substance on a grease trap cover. Additional findings included gouged cutting boards, debris on the spice rack, a soiled mop head on the floor, improper storage of a scoop in a flour bin, and a buildup of residue on a can opener and steam table wells. The towel dispenser above the handwashing sink was broken and empty, with the towel ring placed on a spice rack instead. The FSD acknowledged each of these issues during the inspection. Further deficiencies were noted in food storage practices, such as raw eggs stored above liquid pasteurized eggs without evidence of pasteurization, and shelves in the walk-in refrigerator with removable black debris. Facility policies reviewed indicated requirements for maintaining sanitary conditions in food service areas, proper handling of ice, and clean food storage, but these were not followed as observed. No specific residents or patient conditions were mentioned in relation to the deficiencies.
Improper Garbage Disposal and Overflowing Dumpsters
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain proper disposal and containment of garbage and refuse, as evidenced by multiple observations of overflowing and uncovered dumpsters, a compactor with a buildup of discolored liquid underneath, and debris scattered on the ground in the dumpster area. The survey team observed two oversized dumpsters overflowing with waste and black garbage bags placed around and between them, as well as an uncovered and overflowing cardboard dumpster. The compactor was also noted to have liquid accumulation beneath it. These conditions were visible from the parking lot and during a tour of the loading dock area. Interviews with facility staff revealed a lack of clarity regarding responsibility for maintaining the cleanliness of the dumpster area. The Food Service Director was unaware of the need to cover the cardboard container and could not specify who was responsible for keeping the area clean. The Director of Environmental Services stated he was ultimately responsible but cited timing issues for the lack of cleanliness and was unable to clarify responsibility for two of the dumpsters. Review of facility policy indicated maintenance service was to be provided to all areas, including the parking lot, but the observed conditions did not align with this policy.
Failure to Maintain Clean and Safe Environment Across Facility Units
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean, safe, and homelike environment across two units, as evidenced by multiple observations of unaddressed environmental deficiencies. Surveyors noted dark scuff marks in hallways, heater units with brown and black substances on their surfaces, cracked and missing floor tiles, and broken or misaligned closet doors and dresser drawers. These issues were not consistently documented in the facility's work order system, and some were only tracked informally by the Director of Maintenance/Housekeeping/Laundry (DMHL) on personal lists. Additionally, fluid was observed leaking from ceiling tiles, and the elevator had significant paint peeling and damaged wooden guard rails, with attempts to cover up rather than repair the damage. Further observations included missing floor tiles and discolored ceiling tiles with debris buildup on vents in resident rooms and common areas. Handrails and columns in the nurse's station area were found to be damaged or missing parts, and some of these issues were acknowledged by the DMHL as being difficult to repair due to the age of the building materials. Staff interviews revealed that while some staff attempted to address minor repairs themselves, most relied on the maintenance request system, which was not always effective in ensuring timely repairs. Additional deficiencies included brown stains on ceiling tiles in multiple resident rooms, which persisted over several days of observation. The DMHL acknowledged these issues but indicated they had not yet been added to the maintenance list. Facility leadership confirmed that environmental rounds were conducted by department heads and the DMHL, but also stated that the facility was in the process of being updated and not all repairs could be completed immediately.
Failure to Maintain Controlled Substance Accountability and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain proper receipt, accountability, reconciliation, secure storage, and removal from active inventory of controlled substances for multiple residents. Surveyors observed that controlled drugs, including Lorazepam, Fentanyl patches, Methadone, Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen, Morphine Sulfate, and Alprazolam, were found in an unlocked cabinet and refrigerator in the medication room, some of which were labeled for residents who had been discharged or had expired. Documentation such as Individual Patient Controlled Substance Administration Records (IPCSAR) was missing or inaccurate for these medications, and the drugs were not being included in shift-to-shift controlled substance counts. Staff, including the Unit Manager and DON, were unaware of the presence of these medications and could not provide proper records or explain the discrepancies. Further deficiencies were identified in the management of controlled drugs on medication carts. For one resident, the IPCSAR for Nayzilam spray indicated a remaining balance that could not be accounted for, and the receiving nurse had not properly documented the date or amount received. Additionally, two IPCSARs for Diazepam gel did not accurately correspond to the remaining inventory, and a return medication form was incorrectly attached to a controlled drug that should not have been returned to the pharmacy. The DON acknowledged these inaccuracies and the lack of proper reconciliation and removal from active inventory for discontinued medications. Another deficiency involved the documentation and destruction of a Buprenorphine patch. The Controlled Substance Administration Record for the patch showed that the same patch was both applied and removed on the same date and time, which did not align with the physician's order for weekly application. The nurse involved admitted to not obtaining the required second signature for the destruction of the old patch, and the DON confirmed that proper documentation and witness signatures were not present at the time of wastage. These findings collectively demonstrate a failure to comply with facility policies and regulatory requirements for the handling, storage, documentation, and destruction of controlled substances.
Failure to Employ Full-Time Social Worker in Facility with Over 120 Beds
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to employ a qualified full-time social worker from December 7, 2024, to April 16, 2025, despite being licensed for 180 beds, which exceeds the threshold requiring a full-time social worker. During this period, the facility only had a social worker present for limited hours on weekends, as confirmed by time clock records and staff interviews. The social worker worked primarily on Saturdays and Sundays for approximately five hours each day and had a full-time position at another facility. This arrangement was insufficient to meet the full-time requirement outlined in federal and state regulations. Residents expressed concerns about the lack of a full-time social worker during a resident council meeting, with six out of seven alert and oriented residents noting the absence and limited availability of social work services. The social worker's responsibilities were limited to completing social histories, MDS requirements, and obtaining necessary paperwork for identified residents, with any unresolved concerns referred to other administrative staff. The admissions director and other staff confirmed that discharge and transfer responsibilities were handled by other departments due to the absence of a full-time social worker.
Failure to Post Daily Nurse Staffing Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to post the daily nurse staffing report as required. On multiple occasions, surveyors did not observe the staffing report posted at the front reception desk, time clock, elevator, or nursing units. Specifically, on several consecutive days, the required staffing information was not visible in any of the designated locations. The staffing coordinator (SC) confirmed during an interview that she was responsible for posting the report but had been absent for two weeks, and no one posted the staffing information in her absence. Upon her return, she resumed posting the reports, but there were still delays in posting until after the morning meeting to ensure accuracy. The receptionist, who was given the report to post, did not consistently do so. Further interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed uncertainty regarding who was responsible for posting the staffing report when the SC was away, suggesting a lack of clear delegation or backup process. The facility's policy states that staffing will be posted in a visible location, but this was not consistently followed, resulting in the deficiency. No specific residents or patient conditions were mentioned in relation to this deficiency.
Infection Preventionist Not Present at Required QAPI Meetings
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the required Infection Preventionist (IP) was present at two out of four Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee meetings reviewed. During an interview, the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) confirmed that QAPI meetings were held at least quarterly and that the required members included the administrator, DON, medical director, and other staff. Upon reviewing the QAPI meeting attendance sign-in sheets, the LNHA was unable to identify the IP as present at the meetings held on 4/17/2024 and 10/16/2024. The LNHA also stated he was not aware that the IP was required to attend these meetings. Further review of facility documentation showed that while the IP was off on 1/15/2025, infection control topics were still reviewed with the committee. However, no evidence was provided to show that infection control was reviewed during the 4/17/2024 and 10/16/2024 meetings. The facility's policy requires the IP to be a member of the QAPI committee and for attendance records to be maintained, but these requirements were not met for the specified meetings.
Failure to Implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions for Resident with Open Wounds
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for a resident with open wounds, as required by facility policy and infection control standards. During a wound treatment observation, a CNA and an LPN provided care to a resident with sacral and right heel wounds, both wearing gloves but not gowns, and there was no EBP signage at the resident's doorway or in the room. The LPN cleansed and dressed the wounds without donning a gown, and the CNA assisted without a gown as well. Both staff members indicated in interviews that they did not believe EBP was necessary in the absence of wound drainage or isolation status, despite the resident having open wounds. The resident in question had diagnoses including dementia, hypertension, and diabetes, and had physician orders for wound care treatments. The care plan identified a risk for skin integrity impairment and included wound care interventions. Interviews with the Unit Manager RN and the Infection Preventionist confirmed that EBP should have been implemented for any resident with a wound, regardless of drainage. Facility policy also specified that gown and gloves are required for high-contact care activities involving residents with wounds, to prevent the transfer of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs).
Failure to Maintain Effective Pest Control in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in the presence of flies in the kitchen area. During a kitchen tour, the surveyor observed an open floor drain next to a grease trap with many flies coming from the drain, in the air, and on the wall. The Food Service Director (FSD) acknowledged the presence of drain flies and stated that the grease trap needed cleaning. The FSD also reported that exterminator treatments had not resolved the issue due to the open drain. A pest control logbook provided by the FSD indicated weekly visits from the exterminating company, but there was no documentation of specific treatments or areas addressed in the kitchen. Subsequent observations by surveyors confirmed the continued presence of flies near the dish machine room. Interviews with the Director of Environmental Services (DES) and the Regional Property Manager revealed they were unaware of the fly issue in the kitchen. Review of exterminator invoices showed that kitchen pests had not been addressed in recent visits, and one invoice indicated no service was performed due to a state survey. The administrative team, including the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), Director of Nursing, and Chief Clinical Officer, were made aware of the concern. The LNHA later stated that exterminator treatment for flies had occurred about a month and a half prior, but no specific documentation was available. Facility work orders and policies reviewed did not address the fly issue, despite policies stating the facility would maintain an effective pest control program and keep kitchen areas protected from insects.
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 930 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 18 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 Green Brook
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aristacare At Norwood Terrace | 2.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Plainfield Llc | 3.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Careone At Somerset Valley | 3.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Woodlands | 3.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Mcauley Hall Health Care Cente | 3.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 14 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Abingdon Care & Rehabilitation Center.
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 July 2026) and official state health department websites.