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 Careone At New Milford during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Failure to Complete Required CBC for BOM: The facility failed to follow its abuse policy by not having a CBC completed before hiring the BOM. The BOM’s file showed a hire date years before the CBC was obtained, and the LNHA stated the earlier CBC could not be located. Although the BOM reportedly provided three references, no proof was provided that they were checked, and the facility policy in effect stated that criminal record information reports were requested for all new employees through a third-party consumer reporting agency.
A cognitively impaired resident with a history of elopement was able to leave a facility unsupervised due to inadequate assessment and security measures. The resident was last seen in a common area and later found miles away at their previous home address. The facility's elopement risk assessment was inaccurately completed, failing to identify the resident as at risk. The investigation did not determine how the resident exited, and the facility lacked sufficient security measures at the time.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment eloped from the facility, and the incident was not reported to the NJDOH and Ombudsman's office in a timely manner. The resident, who had a history of elopement, was missing for several hours before being returned. The facility's policies did not address the required notifications, and interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity on reporting requirements.
The facility failed to manage pressure ulcers for two residents, with inadequate documentation and treatment implementation. One resident's pressure ulcers were not promptly addressed, and the Braden Scale assessments were incomplete. Another resident's wound treatments were not clarified, leading to inconsistencies in care. The facility's documentation and communication processes were insufficient, contributing to the deficiencies.
The facility failed to provide or obtain routine medications for three residents, leading to deficiencies in pharmaceutical services. An LPN did not administer Florastor to a resident with ulcerative colitis, and there was no physician notification. Another resident with bipolar disorder missed Risperidone doses for five days, with no documentation explaining the oversight. A third resident with Alzheimer's and glaucoma did not receive Alphagan P Solution eye drops for four days, and the facility's policy for handling unavailable medications was not followed.
Failure to Complete Required Background Check for BOM
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its abuse policy to ensure a criminal background check (CBC) was completed prior to hire for the Business Office Manager (BOM). Review of the BOM’s employee file showed a date of hire of 04/22/2013 and a CBC dated 05/07/2026. During interview, the LNHA stated the BOM had been hired in 2013 and transferred to the facility from another facility in the network, and that a CBC should have been completed before hire but could not be located, so one was completed later. The LNHA also stated it would make sense for someone in the BOM role to have a clean background to prevent financial exploitation. Follow-up emails from the LNHA stated that when the BOM was hired in 2013 and when she transferred in 2017, it was not policy to perform a CBC, and that the BOM provided three references. However, no evidence was provided that the references were checked or contacted, despite the surveyor requesting documentation on multiple occasions. The facility policy in effect at the time stated that criminal record information reports are requested for all new employees, independent contractors, volunteers, and interns through a third-party consumer reporting agency.
Failure to Assess and Prevent Resident Elopement
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately assess a cognitively impaired resident with a history of elopement as an elopement risk, leading to the resident eloping from the facility. The resident, who was cognitively impaired and ambulated independently, was last seen by staff in the television room. The resident was not located during a subsequent search, prompting a code gray and involvement of local police. The resident was eventually found approximately four miles away at their last known home address and returned to the facility. The resident's admission elopement risk assessment was completed inaccurately, as it did not reflect the resident's cognitive impairment and history of elopement. The Licensed Practical Nurse who completed the assessment marked the resident as not at risk for elopement, despite the resident's medical history indicating otherwise. The assessment was later edited to change the resident's risk status, but the surveyor was unable to determine the audit history of this change at the time. The facility's investigation into the incident did not determine how the resident exited the facility, as the available camera footage did not capture the resident's departure. Interviews with staff revealed that the facility's third-floor unit was not equipped with adequate security measures at the time of the incident, such as electromagnetic locks on the doors, which were only added after the elopement occurred. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision and security measures for a resident with known elopement risks resulted in the resident's unsupervised exit from the facility.
Removal Plan
- The staff initiated the elopement protocol and contacted the police to search for the resident.
- Resident #123 was located, returned to the facility, and a full body assessment was completed.
- A wanderguard was applied to the resident.
- Resident #123's ICCP was updated to include a risk for elopement with interventions that included wanderguard placement and monitoring.
- An ERA was completed.
- The facility reviewed the event with clinical leadership to identify areas for improvement and initiated corrective actions and performance improvement.
- An electromagnetic lock was applied to the double doors on the third-floor unit.
- Staff were educated on the facility's elopement protocol including awareness of elopement risk factors, evaluation of elopement risk, interventions to prevent elopement, and elopement response.
Delayed Reporting of Resident Elopement Incident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report a resident's elopement to the New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH) and the Ombudsman's office in a timely manner and did not submit the investigation within the required 5-day period. The incident involved a resident with severe cognitive impairment, as indicated by a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15, who had a history of elopement and required supervision. On the day of the incident, the resident was last seen at 5:00 PM when served a meal tray, and by 6:00 PM, the resident was missing. The police were involved by 7:00 PM, and the resident was returned to the facility later that evening. The facility's documentation showed that the NJDOH was notified two days after the incident, and the Ombudsman's office was informed by the police, not the facility. The facility's policies on accidents, incidents, wandering, and elopements did not address the notification requirements to the NJDOH and the Ombudsman's office. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) revealed a lack of clarity and adherence to the reporting requirements, as the incident should have been reported within two hours according to state and federal regulations.
Deficiencies in Pressure Ulcer Care and Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adequately address and manage pressure ulcers for two residents, leading to deficiencies in care. For one resident, the facility did not determine the cause, implement new interventions, or start treatment to prevent further pressure injuries. The resident was observed with pressure ulcers on the heels, but there was no incident report or investigation conducted until three days after the wound consultant physician's visit. The care plan was not updated with new interventions until two weeks later, and the Braden Scale assessments were not completed as ordered. Additionally, the facility did not follow the wound care consultant physician's recommendations for treatment. The orders for wound dressing were not implemented as prescribed, with delays in starting treatment and incorrect application frequencies. The facility's documentation and communication processes were inadequate, as evidenced by the lack of timely updates to the care plan and failure to clarify multiple physician orders. For another resident, the facility did not complete Braden Scale assessments as required by the physician's order and facility protocol. The resident had a sacral pressure ulcer, and multiple wound treatments were signed as administered without proper clarification of the orders. The facility's failure to ensure consistent and accurate documentation and adherence to treatment protocols contributed to the deficiencies in pressure ulcer care.
Medication Management Deficiencies in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide or obtain routine medications for three residents, leading to deficiencies in pharmaceutical services. For Resident #5, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was observed administering medications without Florastor, a probiotic prescribed for gastrointestinal stabilization. Despite the medication being unavailable, there was no documented evidence that the physician was notified, and the medication was not administered as ordered. The resident had a history of cerebral infarction and ulcerative colitis, with severely impaired cognition, necessitating consistent medication management. Resident #32, who had moderate cognitive impairment and was on psychotropic medications for bipolar disorder, did not receive Risperidone for five days. The electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) was left unsigned, and there was no documentation explaining the missed doses. Although the medication was available, it was not administered, and the physician was not notified until later. This oversight in medication administration highlights a lapse in the facility's medication management process. Resident #352, diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and glaucoma, did not receive prescribed Alphagan P Solution eye drops for four days. The eMAR indicated the medication was unavailable, and while the physician was initially notified, there was no follow-up documentation for subsequent days. The facility's policy for handling unavailable medications was not followed, as the necessary notifications and documentation were lacking. This deficiency in ensuring medication availability and administration reflects a failure in adhering to established procedures.
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 1,526 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 19 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 New Milford
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dellridge Health & Rehabilitation Center | 2.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Careone At Oradell | 2.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Careone At Ridgewood Avenue | 2.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Prospect Heights Llc | 2.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 21 | 0 |
| Family Of Caring At Teaneck Llc | 2.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 17 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Careone At New Milford.
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.