ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
AristaCare at Manchester has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the care provided, which is classified as poor. They rank #165 out of 344 nursing homes in New Jersey, placing them in the top half but still far from ideal. Although the facility's issues have decreased from 8 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, there are still serious deficiencies, including critical incidents where residents were not adequately supervised, leading to significant safety risks. Staffing is a weakness here, with a rating of only 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 45%, which is around the state average; this suggests staff may not be as familiar with residents. Additionally, the facility has incurred $157,543 in fines, indicating compliance issues, and there is concerningly less RN coverage than 79% of New Jersey facilities, which could impact the quality of care.
- Trust Score
- F
- In New Jersey
- #165/344
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 45% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $157,543 in fines. Lower than most New Jersey facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New Jersey. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-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 average (3.3)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near New Jersey avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
1 deficiency
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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Complaint: NJ183978Based on interview, review of medical records and other pertinent facility documentation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records accurately and comple...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
8 deficiencies
2 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint NJ #165621
Based on record review, interview, and review of pertinent documentation, it was determined that the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0808
(Tag F0808)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of pertinent documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff provided a resident with the appropriate physician...
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
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
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 other pertinent facility documentation it was determined that th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document in the medical records. This deficient practice was iden...
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, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to adhere to accepted standards of infection control practices for the proper storage of respiratory tubi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, record review, and review of pertinent documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to complete and maintain an ongoing communication record between the f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an accurate ordering and receiving of narcotic medications on the required ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
3 deficiencies
2 Harm
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** Based on interviews, medical record (MR) review, and review of other pertinent facility documentation on [DATE], [DATE], and [DA...
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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** C#: NJ164217
Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 5/25/2023, 5/31/20...
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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** C#: NJ164217
Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 5/25/2023, 5/31/20...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2021
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to a.) maintain kitchen equipment in a manner to prevent microbial growth and b.) labe...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and review of pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure...
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), 2 harm violation(s), $157,543 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 14 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $157,543 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New Jersey. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (16/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Aristacare At Manchester's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within New Jersey, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Aristacare At Manchester Staffed?
CMS rates ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 59%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Aristacare At Manchester?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 9 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 Aristacare At Manchester?
ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER 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 ARISTACARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 165 certified beds and approximately 146 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MANCHESTER, New Jersey.
How Does Aristacare At Manchester Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aristacare At Manchester?
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 you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Aristacare At Manchester Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER 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 3-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 Aristacare At Manchester Stick Around?
ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER has a staff turnover rate of 45%, 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 Aristacare At Manchester Ever Fined?
ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER has been fined $157,543 across 2 penalty actions. This is 4.5x the New Jersey average of $34,654. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Aristacare At Manchester on Any Federal Watch List?
ARISTACARE AT MANCHESTER 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.