SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
South Jersey Extended Care has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's quality and safety. It ranks #295 out of 344 nursing homes in New Jersey, placing it in the bottom half of all state facilities, and #6 out of 6 in Cumberland County, meaning there is only one local option that is better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues doubling from 10 in 2023 to 20 in 2024. Staffing is average with a 3-star rating, but the turnover rate of 52% is concerning, well above the state average. Additionally, RN coverage is below average, as the facility has less RN coverage than 98% of New Jersey facilities, which can affect the quality of care. Specific incidents raise further concerns: residents were not properly protected during a COVID-19 outbreak, as the facility failed to implement necessary infection control protocols, and there were deficiencies in providing personal protective equipment. While the facility has some strengths, such as a 5-star rating in quality measures, the overall situation suggests families should carefully consider their options when researching this home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In New Jersey
- #295/344
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $9,750 in fines. Lower than most New Jersey facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 10 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New Jersey. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 37 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below New Jersey average (3.2)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near New Jersey avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 37 deficiencies on record
Jun 2024
20 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain all resident rooms and common areas in a clean and sanitary manner. The deficient practice occurred on 1 of 3 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to conduct a new Preadmission Screening...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, review of records, and review of pertinent documents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate incontinence care, and personal hygiene care fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and pertinent facility documentation it was determined that the facility failed to identify conflicting physician's orders for emergency treatment on the medical rec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a system was in place and follo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a Physician's Order (PO) for an orthotic device for 1 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the physician orders related to the use of continuous oxygen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) appropriately don (put on) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE),...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and document review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident room and the resident environment was free of insects, and that staff addressed a re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #12 preferences had been accommodated. This deficient practice occurred for 1 of 20 residents reviewed (Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the smoking policy was ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to mai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and document review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a Surety Bond was in place to provide coverage to protect resident personal needs account funds held by the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and review of Nursing Staffing Report sheets, Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Reports and facility provided documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the Director ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) regular in-service education based on the outcome of employee job...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interviews, and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous foods and maintain sanitation in a safe consistent manner...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and document review it was determined that the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator failed to ens...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to submit accurate No RN [Registered Nurse] Hours Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Report to the Cen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** COMPLAINT# NJ166159
Based on observations, interviews, medical records review, and review of other pertinent facility documentat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** COMPLAINT# NJ166159
Based on observations, interviews, medical records review, and review of other pertinent facility documentat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documentation it was identified that the facility failed to provide residents with a clean, home like environment. This deficient prac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 3/21/23 at 10:42 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #65 in the main dining room engaged in a game of bingo.
According to t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of medical records, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of medical records, and review of other pertinent facility documentation it was determin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0800
(Tag F0800)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents received the food on the meal ticket and adhered to resident preferen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potent...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Social Worker
(Tag F0850)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and review of documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to employ a Social Worker (SW) with the required one year of supervised social work experience in a healthcar...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Infection Control Covid-19 Survey
Based on observations, interviews, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 1/26/2023, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly screen all...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2021
7 deficiencies
2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews, medical record review, and other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility's Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA) failed to ensure that the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** F880 continues at a lower s/s based on the following:
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility doc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medication administration times were scheduled to accommodat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0712
(Tag F0712)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the frequency of physic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On 12/13/21 at 9:12 AM, the surveyors observed LPN #2 administer medication to two residents in the facility. After giving me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 37 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade F (24/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is South Jersey Extended Care's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within New Jersey, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is South Jersey Extended Care Staffed?
CMS rates SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at South Jersey Extended Care?
State health inspectors documented 37 deficiencies at SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE during 2021 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 34 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates South Jersey Extended Care?
SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 167 certified beds and approximately 76 residents (about 46% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BRIDGETON, New Jersey.
How Does South Jersey Extended Care Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting South Jersey Extended Care?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is South Jersey Extended Care Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New Jersey. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at South Jersey Extended Care Stick Around?
SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the New Jersey average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was South Jersey Extended Care Ever Fined?
SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE has been fined $9,750 across 1 penalty action. This is below the New Jersey average of $33,176. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is South Jersey Extended Care on Any Federal Watch List?
SOUTH JERSEY EXTENDED CARE is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.