10 Brunswick Avenue, Edison, NJ 08817 (opens Google Maps) · Middlesex County · (732) 985-1500· 280 certified beds · avg 223 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1989 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · May 12, 2025 · F-0609 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: When incidents aren't reported promptly, abusers may continue harming residents and outside authorities can't step in.
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: Jun 6, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · May 12, 2025 · F-0610 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: When allegations aren't investigated, harm to residents can continue unchecked.
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: Jun 6, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 25 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0609
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
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. · from a complaint F-0812
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| May 12, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| May 12, 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. · from a complaint · F-0812 |
| May 12, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0760 |
| May 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0550 |
| May 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0578 |
| May 12, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| May 12, 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. · F-0686 |
| May 12, 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 |
| May 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| May 12, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Jul 25, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Mar 10, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0550 |
| Mar 10, 2023 | 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. · F-0658 |
| Mar 10, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Mar 10, 2023 | 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 10, 2023 | 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 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Mar 10, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Mar 10, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 26, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Feb 26, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Feb 26, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0756 |
| Feb 26, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0758 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 8).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 4 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 11 | 2 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $102,840.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2025 | Fine | $102,840 |
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) | 3.75 | 3.88 | 3.95 | top 44% in New Jersey; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.76 | 0.67 | 0.69 | top 27% in New Jersey; top 31% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.33 | 3.53 | 3.50 | top 48% in New Jersey; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.48 | top 26% in New Jersey; top 26% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.8 | 39.7 | 45.8 | bottom 47% in New Jersey; top 36% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 35.5 | 37.7 | 42.9 | top 47% in New Jersey; top 39% 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 0.67, weekend 2.94.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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Embassy Manor at Edison Nursing and Rehabilitation. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antala, Rakesh | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 20% | 02/01/2021 |
| Dasondi, Nilesh | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 21% | 02/01/2021 |
| Joshi, Darshna | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 11% | 02/01/2021 |
| Pandya, Yash | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 38% | 02/01/2021 |
| Patel, Vishal | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 10% | 02/01/2021 |
| Weissman, Moshe | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2021 |
All 6 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aristacare at Cedar Oaks | 1.4 mi | South Plainfield, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Rose Mountain Care Center | 3.2 mi | New Brunswick, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | |
| Accelerate Skilled Nursing and Rehab Piscataway | 3.5 mi | Piscataway, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Hartwyck at Oak Tree | 3.9 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Roosevelt Care Center | 4.3 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Brighton Gardens of Edison | 4.5 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| New Jersey Veterans Memorial Home Menlo | 4.5 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Parker at Somerset, INC | 4.9 mi | Somerset, NJ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Careone at the Highlands | 5.1 mi | Edison, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Plainfield LLC | 5.3 mi | Plainfield, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Woodlands | 5.4 mi | Plainfield, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Regency Heritage Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 5.8 mi | Somerset, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Middlesex, NJ — 25 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 315279.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details