How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Bishop McCarthy Center for Rehab & Healthcare
1045 E Chestnut Ave, Vineland, NJ 08360 (opens Google Maps) · Cumberland County · (856) 692-2850· 182 certified beds · avg 175 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1975 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: CENTER MANAGEMENT GROUP (16 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 17, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 6, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.30
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Aug 6, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Aug 6, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Sep 17, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 25 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
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. F-0812
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. F-0656
View all 25 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 6, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0812 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0656 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0761 |
| Jun 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0880 |
| Sep 26, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Mar 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0695 |
| Mar 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Mar 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0812 |
| Mar 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Mar 28, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Mar 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Mar 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0812 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0558 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0695 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0880 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Jan 4, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 7 | 1 | J ▲ |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityNew Jersey averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.30
New Jersey average: 3.88
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.30
New Jersey average: 0.67
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.96
New Jersey average: 3.53
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | New Jersey avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.30 | 3.88 | 3.95 | bottom 25% in New Jersey; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.30 | 0.67 | 0.69 | bottom 6% in New Jersey; bottom 10% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.96 | 3.53 | 3.50 | bottom 21% in New Jersey; bottom 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.13 | 0.50 | 0.48 | bottom 4% in New Jersey; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 58.5 | 39.7 | 45.8 | bottom 8% in New Jersey; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 47.1 | 37.7 | 42.9 | bottom 29% in New Jersey; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 3.29, RN 0.30, weekend 2.94.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.29 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Bishop McCarthy Center for Rehab & Healthcare. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boehm, Caroline | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2015 |
| Gros, Charles-Edouard | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2015 |
| Vineland Ventures LLC | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2015 |
| Babroff, Sherri | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2022 |
| Babroff, Sherri | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/15/2015 |
| Babroff, Sherri | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2022 |
| Boehm, Caroline | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2015 |
| Gros, Charles-Edouard | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2015 |
| Klein, Baruch | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2015 |
| Klein, Baruch | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2015 |
| Levi, Shlomo | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2022 |
| Levi, Shlomo | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2022 |
| Levi, Shlomo | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2022 |
| Newport Real Estate Capital LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/28/2019 |
| Sheetz, Maurice | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2015 |
| Sheetz, Maurice | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2015 |
| Stevanus, Amanda | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/13/2025 |
| Stevanus, Amanda | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/13/2025 |
| Thomas, Tinu | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/29/2025 |
| Thomas, Tinu | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/29/2025 |
Showing 20 of 24 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 4 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Center Management Group — 16 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Lincoln Park Care Center — Lincoln Park, NJ · overall 1/5
- Lincoln Park Renaissance — Lincoln Park, NJ · overall 4/5
- Our Ladys Center for Rehabilitation & Healthcare — Pleasantville, NJ · overall 4/5
- St Mary's Center for Rehabilitation & Healthcare — Cherry Hill, NJ · overall 3/5
- Bellhaven Center for Rehab and Nursing Care — Brookhaven, NY · overall 2/5
- Bensonhurst Center for Rehabilitation & Healthcare — Brooklyn, NY · overall 5/5
- Dumont Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing Care — New Rochelle, NY · overall 3/5
- Hopkins Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare — Brooklyn, NY · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 15 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the New Jersey midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 59% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 24 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Jersey Veterans Memorial Vineland | 1.5 mi | Vineland, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Vineland | 2.0 mi | Vineland, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Millville Center | 4.8 mi | Millville, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Big Oak Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 5.9 mi | Pittsgrove, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| South Jersey Extended Care | 11.5 mi | Bridgeton, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cedar Grove Respiratory and Nursing Center | 13.3 mi | Williamstown, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Preferred Care at Cumberland | 14.2 mi | Bridgeton, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Hammonton Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare | 16.7 mi | Hammonton, NJ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Atlas Rehabilitation and Healthcare at Washington | 16.7 mi | Sewell, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Center for Rehab & Nursing Washington Township | 18.2 mi | Sewell, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| United Methodist Communities at Pitman | 19.1 mi | Pitman, NJ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Berlin Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 19.9 mi | Berlin, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 315126.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).