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 Alaris Health At The Chateau during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
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.
A resident with multiple complex conditions and g-tube dependence experienced several medication administration errors by an LPN during a medication pass. The LPN gave aspirin with an unreadable expiration date, failed to administer ordered thiamine and lactulose due to unavailability in the cart, did not assess bowel status or give Miralax as intended, and administered a steroid nebulizer before a bronchodilator. The LPN also delivered only 330 ml instead of the ordered 360 ml of Glucerna 1.5 via g-tube and removed a scopolamine patch applied the previous day without verifying the order or replacing it, despite an active 72-hour order. These actions did not follow physician orders or facility medication and enteral feeding policies.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of stroke experienced prolonged delays in receiving a needed tooth extraction despite repeated reports of dental issues and pain. Over several months, staff documented family complaints of tooth and gum pain, a dentist’s finding of a large cavity in tooth #6 requiring extraction, and multiple attempts to obtain and transmit medical clearance, schedule and reschedule appointments, and confirm receipt of paperwork with the community dental office. An appointment was cancelled due to weather, follow‑up calls often went unanswered, medical clearance review by the dental provider was repeatedly delayed, and the oral surgeon’s limited availability further postponed care. The family member reported ongoing requests and frustration with the lack of timely follow‑up, and both the SSD and DON later acknowledged that the resident’s dental care and extraction were not provided in a timely manner.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment, an indwelling urinary catheter, and a g-tube was ordered to be on Enhanced Barrier Precautions and to receive medications and nutrition via g-tube, as well as nebulized treatments, eye drops, and a nicotine patch. During an observed medication pass, an LPN performed initial hand hygiene and donned gloves but then administered g-tube medications, enteral feeding, a nebulizer treatment, g-tube site care and dressing change, a nicotine patch, and eye drops without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene between these different care activities and routes of administration. The LPN also failed to wear a gown despite the resident being on EBP. The LPN later acknowledged not following required hand hygiene and glove-change practices, and the DONs confirmed that facility policies and expectations required hand hygiene, appropriate glove changes, and adherence to EBP for such care.
The facility failed to notify the representatives of two residents about significant changes in their conditions. One resident had critical lab results indicating severe health issues, and the representative was not informed until a day later. Another resident developed a new pressure ulcer, but there was no documentation of family notification until discharge. Interviews confirmed the lack of timely communication, which is required by the facility's policy.
A facility failed to ensure physician response to pharmacy recommendations for a resident with dementia and Alzheimer's. The pharmacist recommended increasing Aricept and Namenda dosages to achieve maximum effectiveness, but the physician did not document any response or rationale for not acting on these recommendations. This lack of action was confirmed through interviews and record reviews.
The facility failed to maintain a homelike environment in eight resident rooms and the Activity room, with issues such as peeling paint, rusted heating units, and broken closet doors. The Maintenance Logbook showed no entries for necessary repairs, and an entry indicated no issues were reported or found, despite evident deficiencies.
The facility failed to maintain handrails in good repair on the second floor, with several secured by duct tape and foam, and others missing. Maintenance logbooks showed no repair requests, and staff were uncertain about the duration of the issues. The Maintenance Director mentioned waiting for parts, but no orders were confirmed.
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.
Multiple Medication Administration Errors for a G-Tube Dependent Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident was free from significant medication errors during medication administration. The resident had multiple diagnoses, including history of stroke, type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, gastrostomy (g-tube) status, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right dominant side, and was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 1 out of 15. Active physician orders included thiamine, lactulose, chewable aspirin, Miralax, Duoneb, budesonide, a scopolamine patch, and Glucerna 1.5 via g-tube, as well as nebulized medications. The MAR/TAR for the review period indicated the resident received medications as ordered. During an observed medication pass, the LPN administered aspirin even though the expiration date on the medication label was smeared and not visible. The LPN did not administer lactulose or thiamine after determining these medications were not available in the medication cart and did not obtain them before completing the pass. The LPN stated an intention to assess the resident’s bowel status before giving Miralax but did not perform the assessment and did not administer the Miralax. The LPN also administered the inhaled steroid budesonide before the bronchodilator Duoneb, contrary to the sequence later confirmed by nursing leadership. Additional errors occurred with the resident’s enteral feeding and scopolamine patch. The LPN administered only 330 ml of Glucerna 1.5 instead of the 360 ml ordered via g-tube, while believing the order was for 330 ml. The LPN was unable to locate documentation on the MAR for the scopolamine patch, removed the patch from behind the resident’s left ear without verifying the physician’s order, and did not replace it, even though the patch had been applied the previous day and was ordered to remain in place for 72 hours. Facility policies required medications to be administered safely and in accordance with orders, including verification of the right medication, dose, time, route, and expiration date, and required enteral feeding orders to specify the product and volume for each bolus, which were not followed in this instance. The facility’s failure to ensure the resident received medications as ordered created the potential for this and other residents to experience significant negative physical effects related to the incorrect administration of medication.
Delayed Dental Extraction and Untimely Dental Services
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure timely routine and 24‑hour emergency dental care for one resident with a decaying tooth. The resident was admitted with a history of stroke and had a BIMS score of 5/15, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The care plan called for daily oral care and dental visits as needed. On 12/01/25, a family member reported the resident was complaining of tooth and gum pain, with a dentist having recently diagnosed receding gums and a tooth with an exposed root. The physician ordered a repeat dental consult and PRN Orajel. On 12/03/25, staff attempted to schedule a dental appointment, leaving a voicemail when the dental office did not answer. On 12/11/25, the resident attended a dental appointment where tooth #6 was found to have a large cavity requiring extraction, and the dentist requested medical clearance prior to the procedure. On 12/22/25, the resident was seen by the MD for medical clearance, and the facility contacted the dental office to clarify whether Plavix and aspirin needed to be held, leaving a voicemail. On 01/23/26, the dental office cancelled a scheduled appointment due to inclement weather, and attempts to reach the family member were unsuccessful. On 01/27/26, staff called the dental office to reschedule and were informed that completed medical clearance forms had to be faxed before an appointment could be made; the forms were faxed, but follow‑up calls to confirm receipt were not answered. On 01/29/26, a new extraction appointment was obtained for 02/10/26, with the family member informed, and staff documented that the resident reported no pain at that time, although the family member wanted the tooth extracted as soon as possible. On 02/12/26, the resident returned from the dental office without being seen by a dentist and the appointment had to be rescheduled. On 03/09/26, the dental office again requested written medical clearance for extraction, and staff contacted the resident’s physician and office, with the receptionist stating someone would call back later. On 04/03/26, staff documented that the dental office representative had received the completed and signed medical clearance for review by their doctor and that the oral surgeon only came once weekly, with the office to call back with a date and time. On 04/13/26, staff noted that the medical clearance still had not been reviewed by the dental office MD despite prior assurances, and documented that the resident needed tooth extraction as soon as possible due to pain. Later that day, the dental office confirmed an appointment date and time. The family member reported having requested dental care for several months and expressed frustration with repeated delays and lack of follow‑up by facility staff. The Social Services Director and DON both confirmed that the resident’s dental appointment and tooth extraction had not occurred in a timely manner.
Failure to Follow Infection Control Procedures During Medication and G-Tube Care
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when staff failed to follow infection prevention and control procedures during medication administration and feeding for one resident. The resident had multiple diagnoses, including a history of stroke, type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, gastrostomy (g-tube) status, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right dominant side. The quarterly MDS showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 1 out of 15 and had both an indwelling urinary catheter and a g-tube in place. Physician orders directed that the resident be on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) due to the indwelling urinary catheter and g-tube, that all oral medications and feedings be administered via g-tube, and that the resident receive nebulized inhaled medications, eye drops, and a topical nicotine patch. During an observed medication pass, an LPN washed hands and donned gloves before administering ordered medications through the resident’s g-tube, followed by the resident’s feeding via g-tube. After completing the g-tube medications, the LPN administered the first nebulizer treatment without performing hand hygiene or changing gloves between the g-tube administration and the nebulizer treatment. While the nebulizer treatment was in progress, the LPN provided care to the skin around the g-tube and replaced the dressing, again without performing hand hygiene or changing gloves. Following the g-tube dressing change, the LPN applied the resident’s nicotine patch to the upper chest and then administered eye drops to both eyes, all without sanitizing hands or changing gloves between these different care activities and routes of administration. The LPN did not wear a gown at any time during the medication administration or feeding, despite the resident being on EBP. In a subsequent interview, the LPN acknowledged not performing hand hygiene or changing gloves as frequently as required and stated awareness that these actions should occur between feedings, g-tube care, and each route of medication administration, as well as awareness that EBP were required but not followed. The DONs confirmed their expectation that staff perform hand hygiene and change gloves before and after each route of medication administration, before and after g-tube dressing changes, and before and after administering enteral nutrition, and that EBP be followed as ordered. Facility policies on medication administration, nebulizer care, EBP, and hand hygiene all required adherence to infection control procedures, including hand hygiene, glove use, and gown use for high-contact care activities. The facility's failure to ensure infection control procedures were followed for this resident created the potential for this and other residents to develop infection.
Failure to Notify Resident Representatives of Critical Changes
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely notification to the representatives of two residents when significant changes in their conditions occurred. Resident 278, who was severely cognitively impaired, had critically low hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, as well as critically high urea nitrogen and potassium levels. Despite these critical lab results being available on multiple dates, there was no evidence that the resident's representative was notified until a day after the results were received. The Director of Nursing confirmed the lack of timely notification, which is necessary for making informed treatment decisions. Resident 328, who had severe cognitive impairment and multiple health issues including a recent amputation and pressure ulcers, developed a new pressure ulcer on the left anterior lower leg. This new ulcer was first observed on February 28, 2024, but there was no documentation indicating that the family was notified of this new condition. The ulcer was monitored and treated with Skin Prep, but the family was only informed about the treatment at the time of discharge, not when the ulcer was initially discovered. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing and a Registered Nurse, revealed that the facility's policy requires family notification of new pressure ulcers, but this was not documented in the case of Resident 328. The Administrator acknowledged that notification was included in the discharge instructions but could not confirm if the family was informed earlier. This lack of timely communication with the residents' representatives is a deficiency in the facility's adherence to its notification policy.
Failure to Address Pharmacy Recommendations for Medication Management
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that pharmacy recommendations were responded to by the physician for a resident, identified as R160, who was part of a sample of 43 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The deficiency was identified through a review of records, interviews, and facility policy. The facility's policy required that any medication irregularities identified by the consultant pharmacist be documented and reported to the attending physician and Director of Nursing, with a resolution noted by the physician. However, for R160, the pharmacist's recommendations to increase the dosage of Aricept and Namenda were not addressed by the physician, as there was no documentation of agreement or rationale for rejection. R160 was admitted with diagnoses of dementia and Alzheimer's disease and was on a low dose of Aricept and Namenda. The pharmacist recommended increasing the dosage to achieve maximum effectiveness, but these recommendations were not acted upon by the physician. The pharmacist made these recommendations on three separate occasions, but there was no documented response from the physician. Interviews with the Director of Nursing and the Consulting Pharmacist confirmed the lack of response to the pharmacist's recommendations, which were intended to slow the progression of the resident's dementia and Alzheimer's.
Maintenance Deficiencies in Resident Rooms and Activity Room
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a homelike environment in eight resident rooms and the Activity room on the second floor of the north building. Observations revealed various maintenance issues, including peeling paint around sinks, rusted and peeling heating units, sagging ceiling tiles, and broken closet doors. These deficiencies were confirmed by the Regional Maintenance Director and the facility Maintenance Director during their inspection. Additionally, the Activity room had a broken piece of formica on a half wall, posing a potential injury risk to residents. The facility's Maintenance Logbook, which is supposed to document repair requests and maintenance issues, showed no entries for the necessary repairs in 2024 and 2025. An entry dated 01/09/25 indicated no maintenance issues were reported by staff or found during maintenance rounds, despite the evident deficiencies. This lack of documentation and follow-up on maintenance needs contributed to the ongoing issues in the resident rooms and the Activity room.
Deficient Handrail Maintenance on Second Floor
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain handrails in good repair on the second floor of the north building, affecting all four hallways. Observations revealed several handrails were secured with duct tape and foam, while others were missing entirely. The Maintenance Department's logbooks showed no requests for repairs, and staff interviews indicated uncertainty about the duration of the issues. The Maintenance Director mentioned waiting for replacement parts, but no invoices or orders were available to confirm this. Interviews with the Unit Manager and an LPN revealed a lack of awareness regarding the timeline of the handrail issues. The Assistant Administrator mentioned a potential remodeling plan for the second floor but was unaware of any specific timeline. The facility's policy requires routine checks and timely repairs, but these were not documented or executed, leading to the deficiency.
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 1,618 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 22 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 Rochelle Park
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Rehabilitation And Healthcare At Maywood | 0.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 25 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Prospect Heights Llc | 1.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 21 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Regent Llc | 1.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Careone At Wellington | 1.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Fair Lawn Edge | 3.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Alaris Health At The Chateau.
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.