WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation and Nursing Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #344 out of 344 facilities in New Jersey places them in the bottom tier, with no other local options worse than this facility. The situation appears to be worsening, with reported issues increasing from 11 in 2024 to 13 in 2025. While staffing is rated average with a 3/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 50%, which is close to the state average, the facility has concerning RN coverage that is lower than 82% of state facilities. Alarmingly, the facility has incurred $221,906 in fines, higher than 94% of New Jersey facilities, raising red flags about compliance issues. Specific incidents include a resident being pepper-sprayed by staff and another resident eloping from the facility due to inadequate supervision, both of which pose serious risks to resident safety. Overall, while there are some aspects of staffing that are acceptable, the many critical deficiencies highlight significant areas of concern for families considering this nursing home for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In New Jersey
- #344/344
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 50% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $221,906 in fines. Lower than most New Jersey facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for New Jersey. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 35 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below New Jersey average (3.2)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near New Jersey avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
The Ugly 35 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
2 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ00184635
Based on observations, interviews, review of medical records, and pertinent facility documentation on 03...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Complaint #NJ00183371
Based on observations, interviews, review of the medical record and other pertinent facility records on 3/6/25 and 3/7/25, it was determined on 3/7/25 that the facility failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
11 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 observation, interview and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity whole being assisted with a meal. T...
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
Based on observation, interview and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity while being assisted with a meal an...
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
Based on observation, interview, and review of pertinent documents, it was determined that the facility failed to follow hold parameters for the administration of a blood pressure medication in accord...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record, and other facility documentation, it was determined that the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interview, record review, and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an indwelling urinary catheter tubing off the floor ...
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, review of the medical record and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed implement infection control measures for the handli...
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, review of the electronic medical record (EMR) and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently ensure communicati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0849
(Tag F0849)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, review of the medical record and other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a Hospice Communication Record for 1 of 1 residen...
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 observation, interview, record review and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0712
(Tag F0712)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR), and review of other facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician ...
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 document review, it was determined that the facility failed to handle potentially hazardous foods and maintain sanitation in a safe and consistent manner. This def...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
9 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint#: NJ#162903, NJ#173303, NJ#175318, NJ#177086
Based on interviews, Medical Records (MRs) review, and review of other pe...
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 F0603
(Tag F0603)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Complaints #:
NJ162903, NJ166982, NJ168479
NJ172819, NJ172820, NJ173142
NJ173303, NJ175318, NJ175692
NJ177086
Based on interviews, review of the Medical Records (MR), and other pertinent facility docu...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Complaints #: NJ173888
Based on interviews, record reviews, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 9/30, 10/1, 10/2, 10/3, and 10/4/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to ass...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** C#: NJ173888
Based on interviews, record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], 10/...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(H)
📢 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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
Complaints #:
NJ162903, NJ166982, NJ168479
NJ172819, NJ172820, NJ173142
NJ173303, NJ175318, NJ175692
NJ177086
610 S/S H
Based on interviews, review of medical records (MR), and other facility documen...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(H)
📢 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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaint #: NJ#162903, NJ#166982, NJ#168479, NJ#172819, NJ#172820, NJ#173142, NJ#173303, NJ#175318, NJ#175692, NJ#177086
Based...
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 F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews, review of facility staffing records, and pertinent facility documents on 09/30/2024, 10/01/2024, 10/02/2024, 10/03/2024 and 10/4/2024, it was determined that the facility failed t...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Complaints #:
NJ162903, NJ166982, NJ168479
NJ172819, NJ172820, NJ173142
NJ173303, NJ175318, NJ175692
NJ177086
Based on intervie...
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 F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and review of facility's documents on 9/30/24, 10/1/24, 10/2/24, 10/3/24, and 10/4/24, it was determined that the facility failed to evaluate the performance of all Certified Nursin...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Complaint # NJ00172931
Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 09/25/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to notify a resident's po...
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
Complaint #: NJ00172931
Based on interviews, medical record review, and review of other pertinent facility documents on 09/25/2024, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the physician completed documentation...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN#3) n...
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** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one of t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (Residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the attending physician provided a clinical ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning (www.fda.gov), and policy review, t...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to perform hand hygiene and glove changes during treat...
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 observations, interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that the kitchen was maintained in a sanitary manner for 104 out of 105 residents (one resident was re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and review of facility documentation, the Quality Assurance (QA) committee failed to identify quality deficiencies related to the facility's Infection Control program and take corre...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and facility polic...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2021
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 observation, interview, review of medical records, and other pertinent facility documentation, it was determined two facility staff members failed to don (put on) appropriate Personal Protect...
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?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "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: Federal abuse finding, 3 life-threatening violation(s), 5 harm violation(s), $221,906 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 35 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $221,906 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in New Jersey. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 50%, compared to the New Jersey average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 35 deficiencies at WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 5 that caused actual resident harm, and 27 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 Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER 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 200 certified beds and approximately 176 residents (about 88% occupancy), it is a large facility located in WHITING, New Jersey.
How Does Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Compare to Other New Jersey Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New Jersey, WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (50%) 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 Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.
Is Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Stick Around?
WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 50%, 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 Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Ever Fined?
WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER has been fined $221,906 across 4 penalty actions. This is 6.3x the New Jersey average of $35,298. 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 Whiting Gardens Rehabilitation And Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
WHITING GARDENS REHABILITATION AND NURSING 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.