SUNNYSIDE MANOR

2500 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, WALL, NJ 07719 (732) 528-9311
For profit - Corporation 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
95/100
#73 of 344 in NJ
Last Inspection: May 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Sunnyside Manor in Wall, New Jersey has received a Trust Grade of A+, indicating it is an elite facility with high standards of care. It ranks #73 out of 344 nursing homes in the state, placing it in the top half, and #9 out of 33 in Monmouth County, suggesting that only a few local options are better. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 1 in 2022 to 2 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of only 20%, significantly lower than the state average, indicating that staff are experienced and familiar with residents. Notably, there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign of compliance. On the downside, there were recent concerns identified, including a failure to complete required assessments for a resident after discharge and not adequately managing another resident's pain according to professional standards. Additionally, there was a failure to implement safety measures for a resident with a history of falls. While Sunnyside Manor offers excellent staffing and has no fines, families should be aware of these recent issues that may impact resident care.

Trust Score
A+
95/100
In New Jersey
#73/344
Top 21%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
20% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 28 points below New Jersey's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Jersey facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 43 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New Jersey. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 1 issues
2024: 2 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (20%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (20%)

    28 points below New Jersey average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

No Significant Concerns Identified

This facility shows no red flags. Among New Jersey's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.

The Ugly 4 deficiencies on record

May 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and review of medical records it was determined that the facility failed to complete and electronically transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), within 14 days of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and review of medical records it was determined that the facility failed to complete and electronically transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), within 14 days of the resident's discharge. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 1 resident, (Resident # 27) reviewed in the Resident Assessment Task for MDS record over 120 days old. On 05/08/2024 the surveyor reviewed the MDS history in the electronic medical record which revealed: Resident #27 was discharged on 01/08/2024. The surveyor was unable to locate a discharge MDS in Resident #27's electronic medical record. On 05/09/2024, the surveyor interviewed the MDS Coordinator (MDSC), who stated that the discharge MDS on Resident #27 should've been completed within 14 days of discharge date . She also stated, I missed it. On 05/14/2024 the surveyor noted that the discharge MDS was completed on 05/10/2024 and transmitted on 05/13/2024 (completion was due by 1/22/2024 and transmission was due by 02/05/2024). When the surveyor asked for a policy regarding MDS completions, the MDSC stated they did not have a policy for MDS discharge assessments and that they follow the RAI manual. According to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 user's manual dated October 2023, page 2-17, discharge return-not anticipated must be completed no later than the discharge date + 14 calendar days with the transmission date no later than MDS completion date +14 days. On 05/13/2024, the surveyor interviewed the Director of Nursing who stated that the MDS should have been completed before now. NJAC 8:39-11.2 (e) 3
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to treat a resident's pain to the extent possible in accordance to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review and review of pertinent facility documents it was determined that the facility failed to treat a resident's pain to the extent possible in accordance to current professional standards of practice. The deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 38) investigated for Pain. The deficient practice was evidenced by the following: A review of Resident # 38's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS; an assessment tool) dated 05/08/2024 revealed under section J. that he/she received as needed and scheduled medications for pain. A review of Resident # 38's Order Summary Report located in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed that he/she was receiving oxycodone-acetaminophen (medication used to treat pain) oral tablet 5-325 mg (milligrams) one time a day for pain management prior to care. The order was started on 03/27/2024. Further, the Order Summary revealed an order for Resident # 38 to wear a cervical neck brace at all times. A review of Resident # 38's Diagnoses located in the EMR revealed that he/she was diagnosed with but not limited to Unstable Burst Fraction of First Cervical Vertebra (bone in the cervical spine area crushed in all directions). A review of Resident # 38's Care Plan located in the EMR revealed that Resident # 38 had a focus of chronic pain related to arthritis, neuropathy (Weakness, numbness, and pain from nerve damage) and acute pain related to the cervical fracture. A review of the April, 2024 Medication Administration Audit Report revealed that the oxycodone-acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325mg was scheduled to be given at 9:00 AM. However, the report revealed the following dates an times of the actual administration of the oxycodone-acetaminophen: On 04/06/2024, the medication was administered at 11:03 On 04/09/2024, the medication was administered at 10:26 On 04/12/2024, the medication was administered at 10:21 On 04/13/2024, the medication was administered at 10:55 On 04/14/2024, the medication was administered at 10:37 On 04/21/2024, the medication was administered at 10:46 On 04/28/2024, the medication was administered at 11:02 A review of the facility-provided, undated policy titled, PAIN ASSESSMENT & MANAGEMENT revealed, 11. Medicate the resident as the physician ordered. A review of the facility-provided, undated policy titled, Administering Pain Medications revealed on the second page to, Administer pain medications as ordered. On 05/08/2024 at 12:58 PM during the initial tour of the facility, the surveyor visited Resident # 38 in his/her room. At that time, Resident # 38 stated he/she has neck pain and bilateral leg pain. He/She also had a cervical neck brace on. On 05/10/2024 at 10:43 AM during an interview with the surveyor, Registered Nurse # 1 confirmed that Resident # 38 received oxycodone-acetaminophen 5-325mg and that it was scheduled for 9:00 AM. On 05/13/2024 at 9:41 AM during an interview with the surveyor, Registered Nurse # 2 said We [nurses] have to give them [medications] within the hour. If they are scheduled, they have to be within the hour. On 05/13/2024 at 11:34 AM during an interview with the surveyor, the Director of Nursing confirmed she would consider a medication administered as late an hour after an administration time. Further, the DON stated, If it is a standing order, Yes. If it was given at ten and scheduled for nine, then yes. when the surveyor asked would she considered a nine AM scheduled opioid for pain management given after ten AM or eleven AM, a late medication. § 8:39-27.1 (a)
Aug 2022 1 deficiency
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, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement, reassess and/or dis...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 implement, reassess and/or discontinue a physician order for a crash pad (floor mat or crash mat; a piece of thick and soft material that prevents injury from a fall from a height) to the floor by the bed of a resident with a history of falls in accordance with professional standard of practice. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #35) reviewed for accidents. Reference: New Jersey Statutes, Annotated Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the state of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a registered professional nurse is defined as diagnosing and treating human responses to actual or potential physical and emotional health problems, through such services as case finding, health teaching, health counseling and provision of care supportive to or restorative of life and wellbeing, and executing medical regimes as prescribed by a licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. Reference: New Jersey Statutes, Annotated Title 45, Chapter 11. Nursing Board. The Nurse Practice Act for the state of New Jersey states: The practice of nursing as a licensed practical nurse is defined as performing tasks and responsibilities within the framework of case finding, reinforcing the patient and family teaching program through health teaching, health counseling and provision of supportive and restorative care, under the direction of a registered nurse or licensed or otherwise legally authorized physician or dentist. The evidence was as follows: On 8/3/22 at 11:25 AM, during the initial tour, the surveyor observed Resident #35's room. The resident was not in the room and the surveyor observed a clean room, bed made, call bell was on the resident's bed, and no observed crash pads in the room. The surveyor reviewed the medical record for Resident #35. A review of the admission Record face sheet (an admission summary) reflected the resident was admitted to the facility on in July of 2022 with diagnoses that included, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur (fracture outside the hip joint's fibrous capsule), subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, muscle weakness, repeated falls, and unspecified abnormalities of gait (the way a person walks) and mobility. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment tool dated 7/15/22, reflected the resident had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 5 out of 15, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS further revealed in Section J. Health Conditions, the resident had a history of falls in the last month prior to admission and had a fall with fracture within two to six months of admission. A review of the Order Summary Report included a physician's order dated 7/9/22 for a crash pad to floor by bed. A review of the Progress Notes included an Alert Note dated 7/9/22 at 10:24 PM, that the resident transferred him/herself to wheelchair independently; was assisted to the bathroom by writer; education given but resident not able to verbalize understanding; call bell placed in reach; new orders for crash pads to be placed bedside to decrease fall risk; will continue checks for duration of shift. A review of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Care Conference Notes dated 7/19/22 did not include an assessment of the crash pad ordered by the physician. A review of the resident's comprehensive care plan did not include a focused area or intervention for a crash pad. A review of Resident #35's [NAME] (a system in which nursing staff was given a brief overview of individual resident care needs) did not include the physician order for the crash pad. On 8/4/22 at 9:55 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #35's room. The resident was not in the room and the surveyor observed the resident's room was clean, bed made, call bell on the bed, and no crash pads observed in the room. On 8/5/22 at 9:54 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #35's room. The resident was not in the room and the surveyor observed the resident's room was clean , bed made, call bell on the bed, and no crash pads observed in the room. On 8/5/22 at 10:07 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who confirmed her assignment included Resident #35 and that the resident did not have a crash pad. On 8/8/22 at 10:14 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who confirmed her assignment included Resident #35. The LPN also confirmed the resident was a fall risk and did not have a crash pad. On 8/8/22 at 10:30 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) who confirmed Resident #35 was a fall risk. At this time, the surveyor and ADON reviewed the physician's order for a crash pad dated 7/9/22. The surveyor and the ADON then reviewed the comprehensive care. The ADON acknowledged the physician's order for the crash pad as well as the care plan did not include the crash pad. The ADON stated the physician's order was not appropriate for Resident #35 since it was a tripping hazard. The surveyor and the ADON then reviewed the IDT Care Conference Note dated 7/19/22, and the ADON confirmed the note did not include an assessment of the crash pad. On 8/8/22 at 10:54 AM, the surveyor interviewed the Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) who acknowledged that a physician's order should be followed. The LPN/UM further stated that the IDT team decided that the crash pad was a hazard and confirmed there was no documentation to corroborate. The LPN/UM also confirmed the physician's order should have been discontinued and documented upon assessment of the IDT team. On 8/9/22 at 10:26 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) in the presence of the Licensed Nursing Home Administrator (LNHA), ADON, and survey team stated that the crash pad was a nursing intervention and that the crash pad was not appropriate since Resident #35 was able to ambulate. The DON acknowledged there was an active physician order from 7/9/22 that was discontinued after surveyor inquiry for the crash pad. The DON acknowledged that the nurse on duty failed to communicate to the fall team or IDT team the physician order dated 7/9/22 that was added as a result of a fall risk event. The DON acknowledged physician order's should be carried out or reassessed by the nurses and discontinued if not appropriate because it was a professional standard of practice. A review of the undated facility provided Physician's Orders policy included medications/treatments shall be administered upon the written order of a person duty licensed and authorized to prescribe such medications/treatment in this state .verbal orders must be signed by the prescriber at his or her next visit . NJAC 8:39-27.1
Feb 2020 1 deficiency
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete and transmit the Minimum Data Set (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete and transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS) - Discharge Assessments in accordance with federal guidelines. This deficient practice was identified for 5 of 8 residents reviewed for Resident Assessment (Resident #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7) and was evidenced by the following: On [DATE] at 11:02 AM, the surveyor reviewed the MDS assessments, an assessment tool used to facilitate the management of care, in the electronic medical record (record) for five system-selected residents. A review of the MDS history revealed the following for the five residents: 1. Resident #1 was discharged to the community on [DATE]. The record revealed that the discharge MDS was not completed by the facility and was 166 days overdue. 2. Resident #3 was discharged to the community on [DATE]. The record revealed that the discharge MDS was not completed by the facility and was 144 days overdue. 3. Resident #4 was discharged to the community on [DATE]. The record revealed the discharge assessment-return not anticipated MDS was completed on [DATE] for the resident's discharge date of [DATE]. 4. Resident #5 was discharged to the community on [DATE]. The record revealed that the discharge MDS was in progress and was 100 days overdue. 5. Resident #7 expired in the facility on [DATE]. The record revealed that the facility did not complete a death in facility tracking record and was 87 days overdue. During an interview with the surveyor on [DATE] at 12:07 PM, the MDS Coordinator stated she was responsible for completing the MDS assessments at the facility. The MDS Coordinator stated she had 14 days from the discharge date to complete a discharge MDS. The MDS Coordinator further stated she had seven days to complete the death in facility MDS for a resident who expired in the facility. During an interview with the surveyor on [DATE] at 09:15 AM, the Director of Nursing stated that Residents #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7 MDS assessments were processed on [DATE] and provided the surveyor with the CMS Submission Report MDS 3.0 NH Final Validation Report (validation report). A review of the validation report for Residents #1, #3, #4, and #5 revealed that the MDS assessments were completed late. The validation report further revealed that the MDS assessments were more than 14 days after the Assessment Reference Date (discharge date ). The surveyor reviewed Resident #7's validation report which reflected that the death in facility tracking record was submitted late. The validation report further revealed that the submission date was more than 14 days after the discharge date . NJAC 8:39 - 11.2
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade A+ (95/100). Above average facility, better than most options in New Jersey.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New Jersey facilities.
  • • Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Sunnyside Manor's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SUNNYSIDE MANOR an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Sunnyside Manor Staffed?

CMS rates SUNNYSIDE MANOR's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 20%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Sunnyside Manor?

State health inspectors documented 4 deficiencies at SUNNYSIDE MANOR during 2020 to 2024. These included: 3 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Sunnyside Manor?

SUNNYSIDE MANOR 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 60 certified beds and approximately 51 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WALL, New Jersey.

How Does Sunnyside Manor Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, SUNNYSIDE MANOR's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (20%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sunnyside Manor?

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 Sunnyside Manor Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SUNNYSIDE MANOR 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 5-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 Sunnyside Manor Stick Around?

Staff at SUNNYSIDE MANOR tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 20%, the facility is 25 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 12%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Sunnyside Manor Ever Fined?

SUNNYSIDE MANOR has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Sunnyside Manor on Any Federal Watch List?

SUNNYSIDE MANOR 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.