New Jersey ›Atlantic Highlands
1040 State Route 36, Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716 (opens Google Maps) · Monmouth County · (732) 291-3400· 127 certified beds · avg 96 residents/day · certified since Jun 11, 1968 · 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: CAREONE (37 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 24, 2024 · F-0655 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Why it matters: In the critical first days, staff may not know a new resident's medications, diet, or fall risks.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Jan 24, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 24, 2024 · 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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Jan 24, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 24, 2024 · F-0745 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life.
Why it matters: Without social services support, residents can struggle emotionally and miss out on help they're entitled to.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Jan 24, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 20 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. F-0919
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. F-0657
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2025 | 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 10, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0919 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 10, 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 |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0677 |
| Dec 24, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaint · F-0655 |
| Dec 24, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, 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 |
| Dec 24, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint · F-0745 |
| Dec 24, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Dec 24, 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. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Mar 9, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve meals and snacks at times that fit residents' needs, preferences, and requests, or did not offer nourishing alternatives for residents who want to eat outside scheduled meal times. · F-0809 |
| Mar 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Mar 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Mar 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Mar 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 8, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 8, 2021 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 8).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 5 | 3 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 8 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $8,788.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2024 | Fine | $8,788 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 3.49 | 3.88 | 3.95 | bottom 39% in New Jersey; bottom 36% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.69 | top 35% in New Jersey; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.94 | 3.53 | 3.50 | bottom 19% in New Jersey; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.48 | top 36% in New Jersey; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 25.4 | 39.7 | 45.8 | top 15% in New Jersey; top 8% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 16.7 | 37.7 | 42.9 | top 10% in New Jersey; top 9% 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 3.31, RN 0.65, weekend 2.79.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.31 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Careone at Middletown. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Care One LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 02/04/2002 |
| Des 2009 GST Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/01/2021 |
| Des Holding Co., INC. | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 24% | 12/16/2007 |
| Des-C 2009 Grat | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 10/26/2009 |
| Straus, Daniel | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 09/01/2004 |
| Baruch, David | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2021 |
| Baruch, David | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2021 |
| Care One Management, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/31/2004 |
| Healthbridge Management LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/04/2002 |
All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Careone — 37 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 36 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atrium at Navesink Harbor, the | 4.4 mi | Red Bank, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Complete Care at Shrewsbury LLC | 4.6 mi | Shrewsbury, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Arnold Walter Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 5.1 mi | Hazlet, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Redbank Center for Rehabilitation and Healing | 5.5 mi | Red Bank, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Center | 5.6 mi | Keansburg, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| De la Salle Hall | 7.2 mi | Lincroft, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Anchor Care and Rehabilitation Center | 7.6 mi | Hazlet, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Bayshore LLC | 7.7 mi | Holmdel, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Shore Pointe Care Center | 8.3 mi | Eatontown, NJ | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Careone at Holmdel | 8.6 mi | Holmdel, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Monmouth, LLC | 8.8 mi | Long Branch, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Jersey Shore Center | 9.3 mi | Eatontown, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Monmouth, NJ — 32 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 315087.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details