Abigail House for Nursing & Rehabilitation
1105 -1115 Linden Street, Camden, NJ 08102 · Camden County · 188 certified beds · avg 177 residents/day · certified since Sep 8, 1988
1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.70
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Apr 11, 2023 · F-0880
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.
Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.
Corrected: May 10, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (40)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not properly notify residents about the balance of money it holds for them, or failed to return those funds when a resident was discharged, evicted, or died. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. |
| Dec 27, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint |
| Apr 11, 2023 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not properly protect the personal money residents deposited with it for safekeeping. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not give residents important notices in a format and language they can understand — for example, translated documents or accessible formats for those with vision or hearing loss. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not post the names, addresses, and phone numbers of state agencies and advocacy groups, along with a notice that residents may file complaints with the state survey agency. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. |
| Apr 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. |
| Jan 28, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (21 → 17).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 22 | 1 | K ▲ |
| 2025 | 17 | 0 | F |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | New Jersey avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.70 | 3.88 | 3.95 | top 47% in New Jersey; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.34 | 0.67 | 0.69 | bottom 11% in New Jersey; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.31 | 3.53 | 3.50 | top 50% in New Jersey; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.24 | 0.50 | 0.48 | bottom 17% in New Jersey; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.4 | 39.7 | 45.8 | bottom 48% in New Jersey; top 35% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 37.7 | 42.9 | top 42% in New Jersey; top 33% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.12, RN 0.28, weekend 2.79. Staffing rating: 2/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Partnership
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bleier, Chaya | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 08/25/2005 |
| Braunstein, Jacqueline | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 03/31/2003 |
| Schon, Shloimi | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/19/2003 |
| Young, Simon | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/28/2003 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "If you manage my family member's personal funds, how often will we get statements and how quickly are funds returned?"
- "How can my family member make private phone or video calls, and can we see where?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Majestic Center for Rehab & Sub-Acute Care | 0.7 mi | Camden, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Tucker House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 2.5 mi | Philadelphia, PA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| River Front Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 2.7 mi | Pennsauken, NJ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| United Methodist Communities at Collingswood | 2.8 mi | Collingswood, NJ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Graduate Post Acute | 2.9 mi | Philadelphia, PA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| St Monica Center for Rehabilitation & Healthcare | 2.9 mi | Philadelphia, PA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Logan Square Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 3.0 mi | Philadelphia, PA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Fox Subacute at South Philadelphia | 3.2 mi | Philadelphia, PA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Aristacare at Cherry Hill | 4.2 mi | Cherry Hill, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| University City Rehabilitation and Healthcare Ctr | 4.4 mi | Philadelphia, PA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Rittenhouse Post Acute | 4.6 mi | Philadelphia, PA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Premier Cadbury of Cherry Hill | 5.1 mi | Cherry Hill, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 315267.