Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around November 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 Family Of Caring At Teaneck Llc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility did not provide bed-hold notices that included reserve bed payment information for two residents who had unplanned hospital transfers. One resident had severe cognitive impairment, and another had vascular dementia; staff said the DA handled bed-hold notifications, but the records reviewed did not show the payment details were included. The facility also lacked a physician discharge summary for a resident discharged to home/community, even though the chart contained an interdisciplinary discharge summary and only a late NP note was later found after surveyor inquiry.
A resident sustained burns after spilling heated tea on their arm and abdomen during breakfast. Although immediate care was provided and the physician was notified, the LPN did not enter the physician's wound care order into the EHR or document the treatment as administered for two days. The incident was also not documented in the progress notes on the day it occurred, contrary to facility policy. The DON confirmed these documentation failures, resulting in incomplete medical records for the resident.
A resident seated at a dining table was not served a meal tray while another resident at the same table was already eating, despite staff being present in the dining room. The DA said this was not common practice and later retrieved the tray after the surveyor asked about it. The resident had dementia, depression, and a care plan for risk of malnutrition or unplanned weight loss; the DON stated residents should be served together and staff should accommodate resident choice.
A nurse administered a probiotic to a resident even though the eMAR order did not list a strength, while the stock supply in the med room did not match the product given. In a separate event, a resident’s 2-step PPD testing was not documented according to the PO or facility protocol, with the first step read too early and the second step recorded inconsistently in the eMAR. The DON and LPN/UM acknowledged the order and documentation issues.
Pressure ulcer care and skin assessment failures: A resident with severe cognitive impairment, diabetes, and limited mobility developed a sacral pressure injury, but the wound order was not clarified, the RN weekly skin assessment in the care plan was not followed, and wound findings were not fully or accurately documented. Surveyors observed additional wound changes, including a whitish area and a new open area, while an LPN approximated the new wound without a measuring device and the APN’s notes continued to describe the wound as pink with no change.
A resident receiving GT feedings had orders for Glucerna 1.5 and water flushes before and after bolus feedings, but the eMAR documented 200 ml as the total flush amount for each entry instead of the ordered 60 ml before and 60 ml after. The RN and DON acknowledged the documentation did not match the PO.
Improper storage of resident food items was observed in two refrigerators. An LPN and the DON found multiple items without resident names or required dates, including food kept beyond the 72-hour limit and one item past its use-by date. Both refrigerators also had frost buildup in the freezer compartments, and one had a pink to red colored substance on the freezer surfaces.
Staff failed to follow hand hygiene and PPE practices during resident care and hallway activity. An AIT and an LPN entered a resident’s room on EBP without hand hygiene, touched the resident’s curtain and breakfast tray, and left without cleaning their hands; a CNA was observed wearing double surgical masks; an LPN supervisor wore gloves while pushing a cart and then removed them without hand hygiene; and another LPN entered a resident’s room, used gloves for incontinence care, and exited without hand hygiene. The facility’s policy required hand hygiene before and after direct resident contact, after glove removal, and as the final step after PPE removal.
Unsafe and Unsanitary Shower Room and Eyewash Station Conditions: The surveyor observed a shower room in use with nonworking and dim lighting, missing privacy curtains, an empty soap dispenser, a broken soap dispenser, sharp metal edges on the wall, shelf parts and metal pieces on the floor, and a dirty floor with whitish buildup. The surveyor also observed dust accumulation on an eyewash station. The LPN, MS, RDON, and DON acknowledged the conditions and that items should not have been left that way.
A facility failed to try alternative measures before installing bed rails for a resident with severe cognitive impairment. The facility did not complete necessary assessments for entrapment risk or obtain informed consent. The resident used the side rails for mobility, but there was no documentation of alternative measures, assessments, or consent, as confirmed by staff interviews.
Missing Bed-Hold Payment Details and Physician Discharge Summary
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the bed-hold policy provided to residents or their representatives included information about the reserve bed payment policy for two residents who were hospitalized. One resident had diagnoses including essential hypertension and type 2 diabetes, and a cMDS showed severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 6 out of 15. The facility provided a notice of transfer, Notification of Bed Hold Policies, and admission agreement, but the documents reviewed for this resident did not reflect any reserve bed rates or bed-hold rates. For another resident with diagnoses including vascular dementia, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, the EMR showed two unplanned transfers to an acute care hospital. The closed paper record contained only New Jersey Universal Transfer forms for the two hospital discharges. Facility staff stated that bed-hold policy notification was sent through an electronic system and that the DA was responsible for the process, but the documentation provided did not include the content of the messages. When the facility later produced a Notification of Bed Hold Policies, it did not detail reserve bed payment, and the DA stated the notice did not specifically include reserve bed payment and that there was no additional documentation showing it was included. The facility also failed to have a physician discharge summary completed for a resident discharged to the community. The resident’s EMR showed congestive heart failure and hypertension, and the MDS indicated an unplanned discharge to home/community. The record contained an interdisciplinary discharge summary, but no physician discharge summary was documented in the EMR or closed paper chart. After surveyor inquiry, the facility provided a late-entry note by an NP, and the DON acknowledged it was completed after the surveyor asked about the missing physician discharge note.
Failure to Transcribe Physician Order and Timely Document Incident in EHR
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when facility staff failed to properly transcribe a physician's order and ensure timely documentation of an incident in the electronic health record (EHR) for a resident. The incident involved a resident who, during breakfast, accidentally spilled heated tea onto their left arm and abdomen, resulting in redness and blisters. The LPN and CNA present at the time provided immediate care, notified the physician and resident representative, and applied treatment. However, the physician's order for wound care was not entered into the EHR, and the treatment was not signed as administered for two days following the incident. The resident's medical records showed diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus and malignant neoplasm of the breast. Despite the resident having intact cognition and being able to communicate, there was no documented evidence in the progress notes (PN) of the incident on the day it occurred. The LPN entered a late entry note two days after the event, and the initial treatment provided was not documented in the eMAR or eTAR for the relevant dates. The LPN later acknowledged neglecting to enter the physician's order into the computer and confirmed that both the treatment and the incident should have been documented on the day they occurred. Facility policy required prompt initiation and documentation of investigations for accidents or incidents, as well as timely and detailed documentation of procedures and treatments. The DON confirmed that the incident report was not part of the resident's medical record and that the nurse should have documented the event and transcribed the physician's orders in accordance with policy. The failure to document the incident and transcribe the physician's order resulted in a lack of timely and accurate medical recordkeeping for the resident's care.
Uneven Meal Service in Dining Room
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that meals were consistently provided in a dignified and homelike manner for 2 residents seated at table #9 in the recreation dining area. During lunch meal service, one resident was independently eating after being served a tray, while the other resident, who was seated across from that resident, had not been served a tray. Staff present in the dining room included the Director of Activities and CNAs who were distributing trays and assisting residents with eating. After the surveyor asked about the situation, the DA stated it was not common practice for a resident not to have a tray while others at the same table were eating and said the resident normally took meals in their room; the DA then asked a CNA to retrieve the resident’s meal tray from a cart in the hallway. Review of the records showed that the resident who was not served at the table had diagnoses including dementia and depression, with a care plan identifying risk for malnutrition or unplanned weight loss and a dietician note stating the resident reported a fair appetite. The other resident had diagnoses including essential hypertension and type 2 diabetes. The facility’s Food, Dining Service and HS Snacks policy stated that all residents seated at a table will be served together, and the Resident Rights policy stated that residents are to be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity. During interviews, the DON stated that serving one resident at a table while another was not served was not common practice and that staff should accommodate the resident’s choice daily, not just what they thought the resident wanted.
Medication Order Clarification and PPD Documentation Errors
Penalty
Summary
A medication administration observation identified that a registered nurse gave a resident Saccharomyces boulardii even though the electronic medication order listed only the drug name and did not include a strength. The resident had diagnoses including essential hypertension and heart failure, and the quarterly MDS showed a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. During the observation, the nurse stated the medication came from a house stock bottle, but the stock cabinet inspection found a bottle labeled Probiotic Formula with Bacillus coagulans and inulin, and no bottle of Saccharomyces boulardii was present. The resident’s eMAR showed an order for Saccharomyces boulardii oral capsule, one capsule by mouth twice daily for supplement, without a strength listed. Survey staff asked whether the order could cause confusion if the medication was available in different strengths, and the DON stated that the order should be clarified to include a strength. The facility’s medication administration policy reviewed by surveyors did not mention clarification of orders. A separate review of another resident’s TB screening records showed that a 2-step PPD process was not documented according to the physician’s orders and facility protocol. The resident had diagnoses including generalized muscle weakness, dysphagia, and UTI, and the MDS showed a BIMS score of 13 out of 15. The eMAR documented Step 1 PPD administration, but the Step 1 result was read before the ordered 72-hour timeframe, Step 2 was documented as read before there was documentation that it had been administered, and Step 2 was later documented as administered with no corresponding result entry in the November eMAR. The LPN/UM and DON acknowledged that the PPD timing and documentation did not match the order and facility protocol.
Pressure ulcer care and skin assessment failures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate pressure ulcer care for a resident with severe cognitive impairment, diabetes, hypertension, and impaired mobility. The resident was observed lying on an air mattress, and the record showed a sacral skin issue first documented as a stage 1 pressure injury with a 4 cm x 7 cm measurement. A physician order was entered for cleansing the sacrum with normal saline, applying skin prep, and covering with a dry dressing daily and as needed, but that order was later discontinued and replaced with an order for xeroform and dry dressing daily and as needed. The order for the sacral wound was entered as a combined routine-and-PRN order rather than being separated, and the nurse later acknowledged that it should have been clarified. The facility also failed to follow the physician order and care plan for weekly skin assessment. The care plan included weekly skin assessment by an RN, and a physician order for weekly skin assessment was entered, but the wound was not assessed by an RN until the APN performed the initial wound evaluation. The record showed the weekly skin assessment order was signed by an LPN on multiple dates, and there was no documented evidence that the RN skin assessment requirement in the care plan and physician order was followed. Facility policy required a full body skin assessment by a licensed or registered nurse on admission, daily for three days, and weekly thereafter, as well as after a change in condition or newly identified pressure ulcer. The wound assessments were also not properly documented. The APN’s wound notes described the sacral wound as a stage 2 pressure injury with a pink dermal base, no odor, no undermining or tunneling, small serosanguinous drainage, and intact peri-wound skin. During a later observation, surveyors saw the sacral wound with a whitish area in the middle and another open reddish area on the left side of the sacrum/buttock. The LPN/WN stated the whitish area had been present during wound rounds, but the wound assessment was not updated to reflect that finding. The LPN/WN also approximated the new open area without using a measuring device and documented it as denuded skin, while the DON later stated the wound should have been properly assessed and that the APN’s documentation did not fully describe the wound.
Incorrect Documentation of GT Flushes During Enteral Feeding
Penalty
Summary
Appropriate treatment and services were not provided for a resident receiving enteral tube feedings. Resident #81 was observed lying in bed with the head of the bed elevated, alert and verbally responsive, and stated they had a tube feeding and had recently started a diet to eat by mouth. The resident’s record showed diagnoses including dysphagia, respiratory failure, and generalized muscle weakness, and the MDS indicated moderate cognitive impairment and that the resident received nutrition through a feeding tube while in the facility. The physician’s orders directed Glucerna 1.5 via gastrostomy tube and ordered the tube to be flushed with 60 ml of free water before and after each bolus feeding, as well as 200 ml of free water twice daily for hydration. Review of the November 2025 eMAR showed nurses documented 200 ml as the total amount administered for the flushes before and after bolus feedings on 4 of 4 entries, even though the order required 60 ml before and 60 ml after each feeding. The RN reviewed the orders and acknowledged the documented amounts were not correct and did not match the physician’s order. The DON also acknowledged the total documented did not reflect the order and that it should have been 120 ml documented as administered.
Improper Storage of Resident Food Items
Penalty
Summary
Food was not stored in a consistent manner to prevent foodborne illness in 2 of 10 refrigerators and freezers reviewed. On the central nurses’ station refrigerator, the surveyor and an LPN observed a ricotta cheese container dated 11/2/25 with a room number but no resident name, and a white bag containing a food item in a plastic container dated 11/12/25 with no resident name. The LPN acknowledged both items had been in the refrigerator for more than three days and should have been removed. The DON stated nursing was responsible for labeling resident food items brought in and stored in the refrigerator and that items were allowed to be stored for 72 hours before being discarded. On follow-up, the central nurses’ station refrigerator was posted for house stock items only, while the north unit refrigerator was being used for resident food items. In the north unit refrigerator, the surveyor observed a food container dated 11/18/25 with a room number but no resident name, the same ricotta cheese container dated 11/2/25 with no resident name, a broccoli-cheddar soup container for Resident #50 with no written date and a manufacturer use-by date of 11/17/25, and an ice cream container with a resident name and room number but no written date. The freezer compartments in both refrigerators had frost buildup, and one freezer had frost and a pink to red colored substance on the bottom, sides, and back wall. The DON and an LPN acknowledged the items should not have remained in the refrigerators and that the freezer should have been defrosted.
Hand Hygiene and PPE Failures During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow appropriate hand hygiene and PPE practices for 5 of 8 staff observed, including a CNA, 3 LPNs, and 1 non-licensed staff member, in accordance with CDC guidance and the facility’s hand hygiene policy. The report states that the facility did not follow infection control practices to prevent the potential spread of infection, and that staff did not consistently perform hand hygiene before entering or after leaving resident rooms, after glove removal, or when moving between tasks and resident care activities. In one observation, the Administrator in Training entered a resident’s room with Enhanced Barrier Precautions posted outside the door, did not perform hand hygiene, responded to the resident’s call light, touched the curtain, handled and stirred the resident’s yogurt, and left without performing hand hygiene. An LPN then entered the same room without hand hygiene, responded to the call light, drew the curtain, spoke with the resident, and left with the resident’s tray without performing hand hygiene. The LPN later confirmed the resident was on EBP due to a urinary catheter and acknowledged that hand hygiene should have been performed before entering and before leaving the room, but stated she was rushing and forgot. Additional observations showed a CNA wearing a double surgical mask in the hallway and entering a resident’s room with the same improper PPE use, which the CNA acknowledged should not be done. A licensed practical nurse supervisor was observed wearing gloves while pushing a cart containing respiratory supplies and meal trays, then removing the gloves and providing assignments without performing hand hygiene. Another LPN entered a resident’s room without hand hygiene, donned gloves to check an incontinence brief, removed the gloves, and exited the room without hand hygiene, stating she would wash her hands at the nursing station. The facility’s hand hygiene policy stated that hand hygiene is the primary means to prevent the spread of infections, that it is required before and after direct resident contact and after removing gloves, and that hand hygiene is the final step after removing PPE.
Unsafe and Unsanitary Shower Room and Eyewash Station Conditions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a clean, safe, and sanitary environment in 1 of 2 shower rooms and 1 of 2 eyewash stations. On 11/20/25, the surveyor and the LPN/Wound Nurse observed the south shower room covered with a plastic cover while renovation was in progress, and were told the north unit shower room was being used by residents. In the north shower room, the surveyor observed ceiling lights that were not working, with one fluorescent light dimmed, two shower cubicles without privacy curtains, an empty soap dispenser in one cubicle, and in the second cubicle a broken soap dispenser, two sharp metal edges on the wall, a shelf on the floor, and metal parts on the floor. The shower room floor was also dirty with accumulation of whitish substances. The LPN/WN stated he did not know why the items were on the floor and said they should not have been there. The surveyor notified maintenance, and the maintenance staff stated the white wood and metal parts were from the wall shelf in the second shower cubicle and should have been disposed of, and that the ceiling light should have been replaced. The DON later acknowledged the safety concerns with the metal part on the wall and stated the shower room should not have been left like that. In addition, the surveyor observed the south nursing unit eyewash station with accumulation of whitish substances on top of the eyewash container and on the board where the eyewash solution was placed; the RDON confirmed it was dust and said it should have been cleaned. The facility policy stated residents are to be provided with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including cleanliness and adequate lighting in all areas.
Failure to Assess and Obtain Consent for Bed Rail Use
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that alternative measures were tried before the installation of bed rails for a resident, and did not complete necessary assessments for the risk of entrapment or obtain informed consent. The facility's policy required the use of appropriate alternatives and an assessment for entrapment risk prior to the installation of bed rails. However, for one resident, there was no documented evidence of alternative measures being attempted, no assessment for entrapment risk, and no informed consent obtained before the installation of bilateral half side rails. The resident in question was admitted with diagnoses including vascular dementia, depression, bipolar disease, muscle weakness, and anxiety, and was assessed to be severely cognitively impaired. Despite this, the resident's care plan did not include any mention of side rails, and the facility's staff acknowledged the absence of completed assessments and consents, citing the use of side rails for mobility and positioning. This oversight was observed during interviews with the resident, who stated she used the side rails to help get out of bed, and with facility staff, who confirmed the lack of documentation and consent.
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 1,627 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 21 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 Teaneck
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Careone At Teaneck | 1.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Inglemoor, Llc | 1.5 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Actors Fund Home | 1.9 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Careone At Wellington | 2.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Prospect Heights Llc | 2.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 21 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Family Of Caring At Teaneck Llc.
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.