Above 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 Preferred Care At Old Bridge, Llc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Surveyors found that several residents did not receive timely or adequate assistance with ADLs, including bathing, toileting, and incontinence care. Residents were observed with soiled clothing and bedding, and staff failed to document or provide required care as outlined in care plans. Staff interviews confirmed that care was delayed or omitted due to workload or lack of communication, and facility policy on supporting ADLs was not followed.
Surveyors found that three residents did not have call bells within reach or were not assisted in a timely manner after activating their call bells. One resident with cognitive impairment had no accessible call bell and had to seek help in the hallway. Another resident could not reach their call bell and was not assisted to the bathroom after requesting help. A third resident reported that staff would turn off the call bell but not return to provide assistance. Staff interviews confirmed lapses in following facility policy regarding call bell accessibility and response.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions was identified as an elopement risk through assessment, but no elopement risk care plan was developed as required by facility policy. The absence of this care plan was confirmed by the DON during interviews and through review of facility records.
A resident with moderate cognitive impairment and a history of vascular dementia was able to leave the facility unsupervised when a family member entering the building held the rear entrance door open. The resident arranged transportation home and obtained a spare key from a neighbor to enter their residence. Staff were unaware of the resident's absence until notified by a family member, indicating a failure to follow elopement prevention protocols.
Failure to Provide Timely Assistance with ADLs and Incontinence Care
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified multiple instances where staff failed to provide appropriate assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), including toileting and personal hygiene, for several residents. One resident was observed to be disheveled, with soiled clothing and bedding, and reported not having received a shower as scheduled. Documentation did not reflect that the resident had refused care, and staff interviews confirmed that required hygiene and linen changes had not been performed. The resident's care plan indicated a need for staff assistance with bathing and dressing, but these interventions were not consistently implemented. Another resident was found lying in bed with visibly soaked clothing and bedding, and a strong urine odor was present in the hallway outside the room. The resident stated they had not been changed since the previous night, and documentation for incontinence care was missing for the overnight shift. Staff interviews revealed that the resident was dependent on staff for toileting and incontinence care, which should have been provided every two hours and before meals, but was not done. The care plan for this resident also required extensive staff assistance for toileting, which was not followed. Additional deficiencies were observed with other residents, including one who was found soaked with urine because the assigned CNA was attending to other residents and did not have time to provide incontinence care before breakfast. Another resident, who was totally dependent on staff for toileting, was left waiting for assistance after requesting help, as the CNA did not return to provide the needed care. The facility's policy required that residents unable to perform ADLs independently receive necessary services to maintain hygiene and dignity, but these procedures were not followed, as evidenced by the observations and staff interviews.
Failure to Ensure Call Bell Accessibility and Timely Response to Resident Needs
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified that the facility failed to ensure residents' call bells were within reach and could be activated for assistance, and that residents' needs were met in a timely manner after call bells were answered. One resident with cognitive impairment and a history of falls did not have access to a call bell; the device was found tied underneath the mattress and not visible or accessible. The resident reported having to use their wheelchair to go into the hallway to seek help. Staff interviews confirmed that the call bell was not accessible and that the assigned CNA was unaware of this issue. Another resident, who was cognitively intact but had physical limitations and required assistance with activities of daily living, was observed unable to locate or reach their call bell, which was found behind a privacy curtain. When the call bell was finally placed within reach, the resident expressed a need to use the bathroom, but the CNA left the room without providing assistance, despite acknowledging the request. The CNA later stated that the resident was not on his assignment. A third resident reported that when staff responded to their call bell, they would turn it off but not return to provide the needed assistance. Staff interviews revealed that while CNAs and nurses were aware of the procedures for responding to call bells, there were inconsistencies in ensuring residents' needs were addressed after the call bell was answered. Facility policy required call bells to be within reach and functioning, but these procedures were not consistently followed for the residents involved.
Failure to Develop Elopement Risk Care Plan for At-Risk Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified when a resident with diagnoses including diabetes, anemia, and hyperlipidemia, and a moderate cognitive impairment as indicated by a BIMS score of 12 out of 15, was admitted to the facility. The resident was assessed using the Elopement Risk Evaluation form and determined to be at risk for elopement. Despite this assessment, a review of the resident's care plans revealed that no elopement risk care plan was developed for this individual. During interviews, the DON confirmed that facility policy requires a care plan to be updated within 14 days of a status change, such as identification of elopement risk. However, the care plan for this resident was not updated to address the elopement risk prior to the resident's discharge, and the absence of an elopement risk care plan was acknowledged by facility leadership. The facility's policy on care plan revisions upon status change was reviewed and confirmed the requirement for timely updates.
Failure to Prevent Elopement of Cognitively Impaired Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its protocol and policy to prevent the elopement of a cognitively impaired resident. The resident, who had diagnoses including hypertension, altered mental status, and vascular dementia, was assessed with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. On the day of the incident, the resident was last observed by staff sitting in a chair in their room at approximately 6:00 PM. At around 7:15 PM, staff were notified by a family member that the resident had returned home, prompting staff to search the facility and confirm the resident was missing. Further investigation revealed that the resident exited the facility through the rear entrance when a family member entering the building held the door open, allowing the resident to leave unsupervised. The resident subsequently arranged their own transportation home and, upon arrival, sought a spare key from a neighbor to enter their residence. The facility's policy defined elopement as a cognitively impaired resident leaving the facility grounds unattended and without staff knowledge, which was not adhered to in this instance.
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 746 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 Old Bridge
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reformed Church Home | 1.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare At Old Bridge | 1.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 15 | 0 |
| Roosevelt Care Center At Old Bridge | 2.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 6 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Madison, Llc | 4.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 14 | 0 |
| Meadowbrook Respiratory And Nursing Center | 4.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Preferred Care At Old Bridge, 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.