Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around October 2026
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 Atlas Healthcare At Seashore Gardens during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Unclean Kitchen and Pantry Food Service Equipment: The facility failed to keep multiple kitchen food service items clean and sanitized, including a reach-in refrigerator, ice machine, ice scoop holder, shelves, floor fan, can rack, and wet food prep pans. Staff also left several food bags open in the refrigerator, and microwaves in the snack rooms and pantry were observed with dried food splatter and residue; the DM and RD confirmed the findings.
The facility did not promote or facilitate resident self-determination by failing to support resident choice, as required by regulations.
A facility failed to timely address repeated Resident Council complaints that food and coffee were served cold or at inconsistent temperatures. Eight residents reported the issue had continued for months, especially with room trays, and said they did not know what the facility was doing to improve it. Surveyors observed barely warm coffee at breakfast, and the DM and RD confirmed it needed to be hotter. Meeting minutes showed repeated complaints with limited responses such as monitoring, temperature checks, and reeducation.
Food was not consistently served hot or palatable for residents receiving room trays and for residents in a group meeting. Several cognitively intact residents reported cold eggs, oatmeal, coffee, and bland meals, and Resident Council minutes showed the same complaint over multiple months. During a tray observation, food left the kitchen at acceptable temperatures but was delivered on an uncovered cart with no heating element, and the eggs and coffee on the test tray were only barely warm when sampled by the DM and RD.
The facility failed to clearly explain a binding arbitration agreement to residents or their representatives, failed to tell them that signing was not required for admission or continued care, and failed to inform them of the right to rescind within 30 days. Staff interviews showed the Admissions Assistant and AD did not know or did not fully explain the arbitration terms, and three residents with varying BIMS scores stated they did not understand or did not recall signing the agreement.
Arbitration Agreement Did Not Provide a Neutral Venue: The facility’s admission agreement included a binding arbitration clause signed by most residents, but it required disputes to be resolved by a single arbitrator and stated arbitration would be held in the county where the Home is located. The Admissions Assistant and Admissions Coordinator both stated they were unaware of the regulatory provision allowing residents to select a neutral venue convenient to both parties, and the AC said she was not qualified to explain arbitration to residents. The DON stated residents should receive the information needed to make an informed decision on arbitration.
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection surveillance program for two residents reviewed for antibiotic stewardship. The IP stated monthly surveillance tracked location, diagnosis, isolation status, acquisition source, and antibiotic orders, but the log showed 37 UTI entries with antibiotics for all 37 residents and only three organisms listed. The log did not include symptom onset dates or antibiotic start/stop dates, and the IP stated several residents received antibiotics without lab results or confirmed infection criteria, while separate infection-criteria assessments were not tracked in surveillance.
A facility failed to ensure antibiotics were used only when a diagnosed or confirmed infection was present for two residents reviewed for antibiotic stewardship. One resident received fosfomycin for UTI without documented symptoms or UA/culture evidence, and another received Keflex for UTI without documented symptoms or UA/culture evidence; one McGeer’s assessment was incomplete and the IP stated some antibiotic use in the facility was not supported by true infection criteria or lab confirmation.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and behavioral symptoms was found with unexplained bruising and swelling in multiple areas. Staff discovered the injuries but did not report them to the State Survey Agency within the required two-hour window, instead reporting nearly six hours after discovery, contrary to facility policy and state regulations.
Failure to Provide Written Transfer and Bed-Hold Notices: The facility did not provide written hospital transfer notices or bed-hold notices with the daily rate for two residents. One resident was cognitively intact and transferred to the hospital, but the EMR showed no written notice to the resident or RR. Another resident with Alzheimer’s disease was sent to the ER after a fall; the family member reported only verbal notification, and the transfer notice lacked appeal rights and appeals office contact information. Staff stated they relied on phone calls and did not routinely send written notices.
A facility failed to ensure MDS assessments accurately reflected resident status for three residents. One resident with Alzheimer's disease had a chair alarm in use and documented in orders and care planning, but the annual MDS did not code alarm use. Two residents with dementia had documented agitation, combativeness, and physical aggression during the look-back periods, yet their MDS assessments did not accurately capture those behavioral symptoms.
Medication administration error rate exceeded the allowed threshold. An LPN withheld two scheduled meds for a resident with HTN and hypokalemia because she believed they were outside the time window, and the meds were not given until later after the resident ate a sandwich. The UM and DON stated the meds were late and that the nurse should have contacted the MD when the delay was recognized.
Unclean Kitchen and Pantry Food Service Equipment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to keep the kitchen’s reach-in refrigerator, ice machine, ice scoop holder, shelves, floor fan, rack, and microwave ovens in the pantry and snack rooms clean and sanitized. During the initial kitchen inspection, the Dietary Manager confirmed that one reach-in refrigerator had a black moldlike substance in its interior storage compartment, the ice scoop holder and ice machine had similar black moldlike substance on interior surfaces, two metal shelves under the grill were rusted and had greasy residue, a large floor fan in the food preparation area had heavy black dust on the grill and blades, and a can storage rack had a dried brown sticky substance on the metal racks. The Dietary Manager also confirmed that five food preparation pans were stacked together while still wet. The facility also failed to keep stored foods closed in the kitchen. During observation of food stored in a kitchen reach-in refrigerator, three bags of onion rings and one bag of French fries were found not closed, and the Dietary Manager confirmed this. In addition, the microwave ovens in the 200 hallway snack room, 200 hallway pantry, and 100 hallway snack room were observed with accumulated dried food substances and splatters in the inner cooking compartments, and both the Dietary Manager and Registered Dietitian confirmed they were unclean. The Dietary Manager stated kitchen staff were responsible for cleaning the microwave ovens in the facility’s snack rooms and pantries and were expected to clean them first thing in the morning and when needed.
Failure to Support Resident Self-Determination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor the resident's right to self-determination by not promoting and facilitating resident choice. This deficiency was identified based on observations or findings that the facility did not adequately support or encourage residents to make their own choices regarding their care or daily life, as required by regulations. No additional details about specific residents, their medical history, or the exact circumstances of the deficiency are provided in the report.
Resident Council Food Temperature Concerns Not Addressed Timely
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor the resident right to organize and participate in Resident Council and family groups by not acting in a timely manner on repeated concerns about food temperatures raised by eight residents who attended the Resident Council meeting. Meeting minutes from April 2024 through June 2025 documented ongoing complaints that food, waffles, coffee, grilled cheese, and French toast were being served cold or at inconsistent temperatures, with responses limited to temperature checks, monitoring, reeducation, or plans to order equipment. The minutes did not show timely resolution of the repeated concerns, and residents stated the food temperatures had not improved. During a group interview on 07/23/25, all eight residents stated the food was served cold at most meals, especially when room trays were delayed, and all agreed they did not know what the facility was doing to improve food service temperatures. Several residents stated the issue had been raised repeatedly in Resident Council minutes. The residents involved included individuals with varying cognitive status, with MDS records showing some residents had intact cognition and others had moderately impaired cognition. Survey observation of the last breakfast tray on 07/23/25 showed coffee served from a delivery cart measured 119.8 degrees Fahrenheit and tasted barely warm. The Dietary Manager and Registered Dietitian both tasted the coffee and confirmed it was barely warm and needed to be hotter. The facility later provided a summary showing temperature audits had been completed on several dates and that new coffee pots and insulated carts were ordered in July 2025, while the Dietary Manager stated systemic changes had not been made until then. The cited policies stated that Resident Council is a forum for concerns and suggestions and that grievances should be resolved promptly.
Food Served Cold and Not Palatable
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to serve food that was palatable and hot for residents receiving meals in their rooms and for residents participating in a group meeting. The facility policy stated that each resident is to be provided a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets daily nutritional and special dietary needs, including food likes, dislikes, eating habits, and other factors affecting intake. Three reviewed residents, all with intact or moderately impaired cognition based on MDS/BIMS results, reported that meals were served cold or only warm, with breakfast items such as eggs, oatmeal, and coffee specifically identified as problematic. Resident interviews showed repeated complaints about meal temperature and quality. One resident stated meals were warm but wanted them hotter, especially breakfast, and later reported eggs and oatmeal were cold. Another resident reported coffee, eggs, and oatmeal were cold at breakfast and later said the coffee was only warm and eggs were not served on one date. A third resident stated the food received at meals was cold and bland. Monthly Resident Council minutes from multiple months also documented ongoing resident concerns that food was being served cold at meals. During a group meeting, eight of eight residents voiced that food was not always hot, especially when room trays were delayed, and all agreed the food temperatures had not improved. A test tray was requested for the 200 hallway breakfast meal, and observation showed trays were placed on an open, uncovered cart with no heating element. Although food temperatures on the kitchen tray line were acceptable, by the time the test tray reached the hallway and was sampled, the scrambled eggs measured 114.1 degrees Fahrenheit and the coffee measured 119.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and both were described by the Dietary Manager and Registered Dietitian as barely warm and needing to be hotter.
Failure to Properly Explain Binding Arbitration Agreement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to explicitly inform residents or their representatives that signing the binding arbitration agreement was not a condition of admission or continued care, failed to explain the agreement in a manner they understood, failed to obtain acknowledgment that the agreement had been understood, and failed to clearly grant a 30-day right to rescind the agreement. The deficiency involved three residents reviewed for arbitration agreements: R23, R33, and R5. Review of the admission agreement showed language stating that any claim, controversy, or dispute related to the agreement would be resolved by a single arbitrator, with the arbitrator appointed by mutual agreement or by the American Arbitration Association if the parties could not agree. The agreement also stated the arbitration decision would be conclusively binding, and that both parties would share the arbitrator and association fees and pay their own attorney and witness costs. However, the agreement review and staff interviews showed the facility did not explain the arbitration clause as required, did not tell residents they could refuse to sign it, and did not explain that it was not required for admission or continued services. During interviews, the Admissions Assistant stated she filled out admission paperwork and spoke with residents about the fine points of the agreement, but she did not know what binding arbitration was and could not explain it before residents signed. The Admissions Director stated she and the Admissions Assistant were responsible for explaining the admission agreement and obtaining signatures, but she also stated she was not qualified to explain arbitration, did not read the clause verbatim, and did not tell residents they were giving up the right to go to court, that they could opt out, that signing was not a condition of admission, or that they had 30 days to rescind. R23, who had a BIMS score of 15/15, stated no one explained binding arbitration to him; R33, who had a BIMS score of 14/15, stated she did not know what arbitration was; and R5, who had a BIMS score of 10/15, stated his son handled the paperwork and he could not recall signing any arbitration agreement.
Arbitration Agreement Did Not Provide a Neutral Venue
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide for the selection of a neutral venue that is convenient to both parties in its binding arbitration agreement embedded in the admission agreement signed by 131 of 139 residents currently residing in the facility. Review of the admission agreement showed that any claim, controversy, or dispute, except for collection of non-payment of fees, would be resolved by a single arbitrator, with the arbitrator appointed by mutual agreement of the Home and Resident or by the American Arbitration Association if no agreement could be reached. The agreement also stated that arbitration would be held in the county where the Home is located, and that the decision of the arbitrator would be conclusively binding in any court of competent jurisdiction. Review of the facility’s census report showed that 131 of 138 residents had signed the admission agreement, including the arbitration clause. During interviews, the Admissions Assistant stated she was unaware of the regulatory provision allowing residents to select a neutral venue convenient to both parties for arbitration. The Admissions Coordinator stated that she and the Admissions Assistant were responsible for explaining the admission agreement and obtaining signatures, but also stated she was not qualified to explain arbitration to residents and was unaware of the regulatory provision regarding a neutral venue. The DON stated that residents should receive the information needed to make an informed decision on arbitration and should be able to change their minds in line with federal regulations.
Infection Surveillance and Antibiotic Stewardship Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop an effective infection surveillance program to support appropriate infection prevention and control activities and antibiotic stewardship for two residents reviewed for antibiotic use. During interview, the Infection Preventionist stated that monthly surveillance tracked resident location, diagnosis, need for isolation, whether the infection was facility- or community-acquired, and the antibiotic order, but the June 2025 infection control surveillance log showed 37 urinary tract infections and all 37 residents had documented antibiotic treatment, with only three residents having the organism listed. The Infection Preventionist stated that if no organism was listed, it meant there was no lab test or no organism detected. The surveillance log did not include dates of symptom onset or start and stop dates of antibiotic treatment. The Infection Preventionist stated antibiotics were used for several residents even though they did not have lab results or did not meet criteria for a confirmed infection, and that separate assessments were completed to determine whether an infection met criteria but were not tracked in surveillance to identify which infections were true infections. The facility policy titled, Antibiotic Stewardship - Review and Surveillance of Antibiotic Use and Outcomes, stated that all resident antibiotic regimens would be documented on the facility-approved antibiotic surveillance tracking form and that the information gathered would include the date symptoms appeared and the start date of antibiotic use.
Antibiotics Used Without Confirmed Infection
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure antibiotics were used only in the presence of a diagnosed or confirmed infection for two residents reviewed for antibiotic stewardship. For one resident, the MAR showed an order for fosfomycin tromethamine, 3 grams one time only for UTI, but the EMR contained no documentation of symptoms, including increased incontinence, and no evidence that a urinalysis or culture was completed. The resident’s McGeer’s Criteria assessment showed only one of two criteria was met, with abnormal biology not met and the determination that the infection met criteria not met. For another resident, the MAR showed an order for Keflex twice daily for ten days for UTI, but the EMR contained no documentation of UTI symptoms on or around the order date and no evidence that a urinalysis or culture was completed. The resident’s McGeer’s Criteria assessment had not been completed to evaluate criteria for a UTI. During interview, the Infection Preventionist stated there were several antibiotics in use for infections that did not meet criteria for true infection and/or were not confirmed by lab tests or cultures, and stated she had not provided education to physicians regarding antibiotic stewardship and surveillance criteria or addressed the concern with administration or the medical director.
Failure to Timely Report Injury of Unknown Origin
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely reporting of an injury of unknown origin for one resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of behavioral symptoms. The resident, who had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, depression, and anxiety, was assessed as being at risk for abuse, neglect, and misappropriation. On the date of the incident, a CNA notified a nurse that the resident had new bruises on multiple areas including the lower extremities, chest, abdomen, hip, and coccyx, as well as swelling on the abdomen. The resident was unable to explain the bruising, and staff were unaware of its cause. According to facility policy and state regulations, any suspicion of abuse, neglect, or injury of unknown origin must be reported immediately, defined as within two hours, to the administrator and appropriate authorities. However, the injury was discovered at 11:36 AM and was not reported to the State Survey Agency until almost six hours later. The DON confirmed that the injury should have been reported within the two-hour window, but was not notified immediately. This delay in reporting was not in accordance with the facility's policy and regulatory requirements.
Failure to Provide Written Transfer and Bed-Hold Notices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to send a written notification of transfer to the hospital and a bed-hold notification that included the daily rate to the resident and resident representative for two residents reviewed for hospital transfer and bed-hold notification. The facility’s policy stated that residents or representatives are to be provided written information regarding bed-hold policies at the time of transfer or within 24 hours if the transfer was an emergency, including the per diem rate required to hold a bed. However, the facility’s undated Admission, Transfer, and Discharge policy did not provide guidance related to written transfer notification to the resident and resident representative. One resident, who had a BIMS score of 15 and was cognitively intact, was discharged to the hospital and later returned to the facility, but the EMR contained no evidence that a written transfer notice or bed-hold notice with the daily rate was provided to the resident or resident representative. The second resident had diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety, and was assessed as severely cognitively impaired. After a fall and transfer to the ER, the family member stated she was only notified by phone after the resident was already at the ER and did not receive written notice. The record showed a bed-hold notice signed by the receptionist that did not include the per diem rate, and the emergency transfer notice did not include appeal rights or the appeals office contact information; staff interviews confirmed that written transfer notices were not routinely sent and that the bed-hold rate was not included unless the representative elected to hold the bed.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Alarm Use and Behavioral Symptoms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected resident status for three residents. For one resident with Alzheimer's disease, depression, and anxiety, the annual MDS dated with an ARD of 06/12/25 stated she did not use any alarms, even though the EMR showed a physician order for a chair alarm and daily documentation that the chair alarm was checked and in use during the look-back period. Her care plan also included chair alarm interventions for fall risk, and MDS staff confirmed the assessment did not reflect alarm use. For a second resident with dementia, depression, and adjustment disorder, the annual MDS with an ARD of 06/27/25 indicated no behavioral symptoms during the seven-day look-back period, but the record included notes that she was agitated and combative during morning care and unable to be redirected, and that an ultrasound could not be completed because of resident agitation. For a third resident with bilateral primary osteoarthritis of the knee and legal blindness, the admission MDS with an ARD of 04/29/24 indicated no physical behaviors toward others, although nursing notes documented that the resident became combative with a CNA, grabbed the CNA by the hair, and bit the CNA's hand, breaking the skin. MDS staff confirmed the behavioral information was not reflected accurately on the resident's assessments.
Medication administration error rate exceeded the allowed threshold
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below five percent during medication administration on one wing, with two errors or omissions occurring out of 25 opportunities for error, resulting in an 8% medication error rate. The deficiency involved one resident whose orders included Metoprolol Tartrate 25 mg twice daily for hypertension, to be held for systolic blood pressure below 110, and Potassium Chloride ER 10 mEq daily for hypokalemia, to be given with meals followed by a large glass of water. The facility policy required medications to be administered in accordance with prescriber orders and within one hour of the prescribed time unless otherwise specified. During observation, an LPN prepared to give the resident's medications and stated the Metoprolol and Potassium were due at 8:15 AM and were out of compliance, so she was not going to give them. She also stated that technically there was an hour before and after the scheduled time, but because it was 9:45 AM she considered them out of compliance and planned to ask the UM. The LPN gave the resident the rest of the medications but withheld the Metoprolol and Potassium. The UM stated the medications were late, that the Metoprolol should be given with a meal and the Potassium with water, and later stated she had called the doctor and the medications would be given once a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was obtained. The MAR showed both medications were ultimately given at 10:40 AM after the resident ate the sandwich. The LPN later stated she was not aware of the early scheduled medications and failed to prioritize them, and the DON stated the nurse should have called the doctor when the medications were being given late.
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 145 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 3 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 Galloway Township
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health Center At Galloway, The | 0.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 19 | 0 |
| Royal Suites Health Care & Rehabilitation | 0.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Preferred Care At Absecon | 3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Excel Care At Egg Harbor | 4.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Our Ladys Center For Rehabilitation & Healthcare | 6.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Atlas Healthcare At Seashore Gardens.
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.