139 Grant Ave, Eatontown, NJ 07724 (opens Google Maps) · Monmouth County · (732) 542-4700· 178 certified beds · avg 145 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1981 · 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: THE ROSENBERG FAMILY (16 facilities, chain avg rating 2.7★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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 · Nov 17, 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: Dec 11, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 9, 2025 · F-0692
The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.
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 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 26 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 provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. F-0692
The 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. F-0803
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · F-0803 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607 |
| Jan 9, 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 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Jan 9, 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 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · F-0836 |
| Sep 29, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Sep 29, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint · F-0925 |
| Sep 29, 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 |
| Sep 29, 2023 | 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 |
| Sep 29, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Sep 29, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Sep 29, 2023 | 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 |
| Sep 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| May 26, 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 |
| May 26, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 26, 2022 | 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 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0577 |
| May 26, 2022 | 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 |
| May 26, 2022 | 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 |
| May 26, 2022 | 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 |
| May 26, 2022 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 9).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 10 | 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 →
2 fines totaling $135,795.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 17, 2025 | Fine | $108,154 |
| Jan 9, 2025 | Fine | $27,641 |
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) | 4.01 | 3.88 | 3.95 | top 29% in New Jersey; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.00 | 0.67 | 0.69 | top 12% in New Jersey; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.45 | 3.53 | 3.50 | top 42% in New Jersey; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.69 | 0.50 | 0.48 | top 16% in New Jersey; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.0 | 39.7 | 45.8 | top 46% in New Jersey; top 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 30.8 | 37.7 | 42.9 | top 36% in New Jersey; top 30% 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 3.11, RN 0.77, weekend 2.67.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.11 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: 2/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Shore Pointe Care Center. 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 - Partnership
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gateway Care Center, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 10/01/2002 |
| Rosenberg, Jonathan | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 09/01/2016 |
| Abboud, Walid | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Abboud, Walid | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Capuano, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/07/2022 |
| Capuano, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/27/2025 |
| Gateway Care Center, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/27/2025 |
| Gateway Eatontown Associates LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2002 |
| Gateway Eatontown Associates LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2002 |
| Gateway Eatontown Associates LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2002 |
| Rosenberg, Jonathan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2002 |
| Stern, Samuel | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2017 |
| Stern, Samuel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2017 |
All 13 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Rosenberg Family — 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.
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.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jersey Shore Center | 1.5 mi | Eatontown, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Redbank Center for Rehabilitation and Healing | 3.3 mi | Red Bank, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Complete Care at Shrewsbury LLC | 3.8 mi | Shrewsbury, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Complete Care at Monmouth, LLC | 3.9 mi | Long Branch, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Atrium at Navesink Harbor, the | 4.1 mi | Red Bank, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Imperial Care Center | 4.7 mi | Neptune, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Continuing Care at Seabrook | 4.9 mi | Tinton Falls, NJ | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| De la Salle Hall | 4.9 mi | Lincroft, NJ | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Aster Creek Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 5.1 mi | Tinton Falls, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| King Manor Care and Rehabilitation Center | 5.3 mi | Neptune, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Jersey Shore Post Acute Rehabilitation and Nursing | 5.9 mi | Neptune, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Coral Harbor Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 6.0 mi | Neptune City, 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 315177.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details