CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Chatham Hills Subacute Care Center has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and in the middle of the pack compared to other facilities. In New Jersey, it ranks #109 out of 344, placing it in the top half of the state, and #9 out of 21 in Morris County, indicating that only eight local options are better. The facility is currently improving, as it has reduced issues from seven in 2024 to just one in 2025. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 47%, which is close to the state average, and it has received average RN coverage. However, there are some concerning findings, including a critical incident where CPR was not initiated for a resident who was unresponsive, as well as issues with food safety in the kitchen, such as unlabelled and outdated food items. Overall, while the center has strengths in some areas, there are significant weaknesses that families should carefully consider.
- Trust Score
- C
- In New Jersey
- #109/344
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 47% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $14,521 in fines. Lower than most New Jersey facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 41 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for New Jersey. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 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
Near New Jersey avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
1 deficiency
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 record review, observation, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure staff followed enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) while providing Activities of Daily Livin...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were served their meals in a dignified manner during meal service. This deficien...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide daily delivery of mail, to include Saturdays. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 5 residents interviewed during t...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** COMPLAINT # 157599
Based on observations, interview, record review and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determ...
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ00167644
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment for residents, staff, and the public by failin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous foods and maintain sanitation in a safe and cons...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2.) On 05/22/24 at 12:04 PM, during the initial tour of the facility, the surveyor observed Resident #18 in their room, sitting in wheelchair, by the window. The resident showed the surveyor their gal...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
2 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #NJ 00163449
Based on interviews and review of the medical records (MRs) and other facility documentation on [DATE] an...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #NJ 00163449
Based on interviews and review of the medical records (MRs) and other facility documentation on [DATE] an...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and facility documentation review, it was determined that the facility failed to document a. ordered behavioral monitoring and b. ordered urinary outputs on 2 of 20 re...
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, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to properly secure an oxygen cylinder and failed to ensure that oxygen was delivered at a rate consistent ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document required information on the shift to shift narcotic accountability log and the Cons...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the safe and appetizing temperatures of food and drink were appropriately served to facility residents. This defic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
F812 - Food Safety Requirements
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain proper kitchen sanitation practices. This deficient practice was identified by the fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. On 3/14/22 at 10:17 AM, the surveyor observed a yellow STOP sign, a sign indicating contact precautions, and instructions on how to put on and take off PPE, posted on Resident #97's door. The surve...
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: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 16 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $14,521 in fines. Above average for New Jersey. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade C (56/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Chatham Hills Subacute's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within New Jersey, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Chatham Hills Subacute Staffed?
CMS rates CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 47%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Chatham Hills Subacute?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 14 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Chatham Hills Subacute?
CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CARERITE CENTERS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 108 certified beds and approximately 92 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CHATHAM, New Jersey.
How Does Chatham Hills Subacute Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (47%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Chatham Hills Subacute?
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 Chatham Hills Subacute Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Chatham Hills Subacute Stick Around?
CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 47%, which is about average for New Jersey nursing homes (state average: 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 Chatham Hills Subacute Ever Fined?
CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER has been fined $14,521 across 1 penalty action. This is below the New Jersey average of $33,224. 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 Chatham Hills Subacute on Any Federal Watch List?
CHATHAM HILLS SUBACUTE CARE CENTER 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.