New JerseyAbsecon

Preferred Care at Absecon

1020 Pitney Road, Absecon, NJ 08201 · Atlantic County · 162 certified beds · avg 152 residents/day · certified since May 20, 1987

Part of chain: PREFERRED CARE (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.7★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$25,753
Fines, last 3 years
3.95
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

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)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 28, 2023 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 23, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (22)

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, 2024E · 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, 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.
Dec 23, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 28, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Sep 28, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint
Sep 28, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Sep 28, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Sep 28, 2023D · 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
Sep 28, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Sep 28, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint
Aug 18, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Aug 18, 2023B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Aug 18, 2023B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Jul 26, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 26, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 26, 2022D · 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 26, 2022D · 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.
Jul 26, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 26, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Jul 26, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Jul 26, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 26, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 3).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202290E
2023101G ▲
202430E

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 $25,753.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 28, 2023Fine$25,753

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)3.953.883.95top 32% in New Jersey; top 42% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.340.670.69bottom 12% in New Jersey; bottom 14% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.403.533.50top 45% in New Jersey; top 47% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.100.500.48bottom 1% in New Jersey; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)51.039.745.8bottom 21% in New Jersey; bottom 34% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)31.337.742.9top 38% in New Jersey; top 32% 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 4.09, RN 0.35, weekend 3.53. 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Absecon Holdco LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%06/01/2019
Absecon Investors LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest20%06/01/2019
Green, DovIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest36%06/01/2019
Mermelstein, BoruchIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest36%06/01/2019
Schnell, DavidIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest5%06/01/2019
Amoyelle, YechezkelIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2019
Stern, SamuelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2019

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
Excel Care at Egg Harbor2.7 miEgg Harbor Township, NJ★★★★☆3/5
Atlas Healthcare at Seashore Gardens3.0 miGalloway Township, NJ★★★☆☆2/5
Health Center at Galloway, the3.3 miGalloway Township, NJ★★☆☆☆2/5
Royal Suites Health Care & Rehabilitation3.4 miGalloway Township, NJ★★★★☆4/5
Our Ladys Center for Rehabilitation & Healthcare4.6 miPleasantville, NJ★★★★☆3/5
Meadowview Nursing and Rehabilitation Center5.0 miNorthfield, NJ★★☆☆☆2/5
Excel Care at the Pines6.8 miAtlantic City, NJ★★☆☆☆2/5
Complete Care at Linwood, LLC8.2 miLinwood, NJ★★☆☆☆2/5
Seacrest Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center11.3 miLittle Egg Harbor TW, NJ★★★☆☆2/5
United Methodist Communities at the Shores13.2 miOcean City, NJ★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Absecon →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 315244.