New Jersey ›Cedar Grove

Canterbury at Cedar Grove

398 Pompton Avenue, Cedar Grove, NJ 07009 · Essex County · 180 certified beds · avg 143 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1984

Part of chain: MB HEALTHCARE (12 facilities, chain avg rating 3.7★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$9,661
Fines, last 3 years
3.82
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

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.

All citations in the current public record (45)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Dec 23, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Dec 23, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Dec 23, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Dec 23, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
Dec 23, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
May 8, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Dec 16, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Sep 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Jul 3, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Jul 3, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman.
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care.
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule.
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Jul 26, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials.
Jul 26, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Jul 26, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Jul 26, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Jul 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023250F
2024130F
202570F

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)

1 fine totaling $9,661.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jul 3, 2024Fine$9,661

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityNew Jersey avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.823.883.95top 39% in New Jersey; top 47% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.490.670.69bottom 39% in New Jersey; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.603.533.50top 33% in New Jersey; top 37% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.320.500.48bottom 36% in New Jersey; bottom 36% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)39.139.745.8bottom 49% in New Jersey; top 34% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)33.337.742.9top 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 3.22, RN 0.42, weekend 3.03. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Jacobs, HymanIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest95%01/18/2002
Jacobs, LiviaIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest5%01/18/2002
Metternich, ChristopherIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/17/2017
Resh, RebeccaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE05/29/2018

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Alaris Health at Cedar Grove0.4 miCedar Grove, NJ★★★★☆3/5
Complete Care at Cedar Grove0.8 miCedar Grove, NJ★★★★☆3/5
Complete Care at St Vincents LLC1.7 miCedar Grove, NJ★★★★★5/5
Family of Caring Healthcare at Montclair1.8 miMontclair, NJ★★★★☆4/5
Arbor Glen Center2.0 miCedar Grove, NJ★★☆☆☆2/5
Green Hill2.2 miWest Orange, NJ★★☆☆☆2/5
St Catherine of Siena2.2 miCaldwell, NJ★★★☆☆3/5
Montclair Care Center2.9 miMontclair, NJ★★★★☆4/5
Complete Care at West Caldwell LLC3.1 miWest Caldwell, NJ★★★★☆3/5
Lutheran Social Ministries Cranes Mill3.8 miWest Caldwell, NJ★★★★★4/5
Atlas Rehabilitation and Healthcare at Daughters O4.3 miClifton, NJ★★★☆☆2/5
Daughters of Israel Pleasant Valley Home4.7 miWest Orange, NJ★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Cedar Grove →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 315204.