BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Bergen New Bridge Medical Center has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #96 out of 344 facilities in New Jersey, placing it in the top half for care quality. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of issues increasing from 5 in 2023 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a 4 out of 5-star rating and a low turnover rate of 16%, significantly better than the state average. However, the facility has incurred $47,430 in fines, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents noted in inspections include a serious concern where a resident was not repositioned for several days, risking pressure sores, and issues with the food service where pans were found wet and improperly stacked, posing a risk for microbial growth. Additionally, there was a failure to ensure that call bell notifications were functioning properly, which could affect residents' ability to receive timely assistance. While there are strengths in staffing and overall care, these incidents highlight areas needing attention.
- Trust Score
- B
- In New Jersey
- #96/344
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 16% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 32 points below New Jersey's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $47,430 in fines. Lower than most New Jersey facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 58 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New Jersey. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (16%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (16%)
32 points below New Jersey average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
May 2025
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to inform the resident or their representative in advance of treatment risks and benefits, options, and a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure 3 of 32 residents (Residents #20, #83, and #228) call bells were w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain the residents' living environment in a clea...
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, and review of other pertinent facility documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure timely revision of the individualized comprehensive care plan an...
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 other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the necessary respiratory care and services o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed ensure a high blood pressure medication with parameters (defined set of conditions) was administered with...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain written consent for the administration of an influenza (flu) vaccine...
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, interview, record review, and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to; a) sanitize and air-dry steam table pans correctly to prevent microbial growth, b) fol...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint NJ # 169798
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent facility documentation, it was determined that th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
5 deficiencies
1 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) On 03/22/23 at 11:02 AM, Surveyor #2 observed Resident #38 lying flat on his/her back with the head of the bed slightly elev...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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
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, record review and review of pertinent documents it was determined that the facility failed to e...
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
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
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 documents it was determined, the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2021
2 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 record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain resident care equipment and personal items clean and sanitary for 1 of 35 residents (Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and review of facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to store a controlled substance in a manner that would decrease the possibility of loss or ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 16% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 32 points below New Jersey's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 16 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $47,430 in fines. Higher than 94% of New Jersey facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
About This Facility
What is Bergen New Bridge Medical Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL 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 Bergen New Bridge Medical Center Staffed?
CMS rates BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 16%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Bergen New Bridge Medical Center?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 15 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Bergen New Bridge Medical Center?
BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 574 certified beds and approximately 353 residents (about 61% occupancy), it is a large facility located in PARAMUS, New Jersey.
How Does Bergen New Bridge Medical Center Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (16%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bergen New Bridge Medical Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Bergen New Bridge Medical Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in New Jersey. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Bergen New Bridge Medical Center Stick Around?
Staff at BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 16%, the facility is 29 percentage points below the New Jersey average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 10%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Bergen New Bridge Medical Center Ever Fined?
BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL CENTER has been fined $47,430 across 1 penalty action. The New Jersey average is $33,553. 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 Bergen New Bridge Medical Center on Any Federal Watch List?
BERGEN NEW BRIDGE MEDICAL 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.