The Fountains of Atco
114 Hayes Mill Road, Atco, NJ 08004 · Camden County · 60 certified beds · avg 56 residents/day · certified since Jun 10, 1990
SFF Candidate
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5
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)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Jun 8, 2026 · F-0880 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.
Severity (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.
Corrected: Jul 28, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Dec 6, 2023 · 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): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.
Corrected: Mar 6, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, repeated · Jan 9, 2026 · 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 (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.
Corrected: Jan 10, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (35)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 8, 2026 | ▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide | 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 5, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 5, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint |
| Jan 9, 2026 | ▲ H · Actual harm, repeated | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The 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. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · from a complaint |
| Jan 9, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
| Dec 6, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-off | 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 |
| Dec 6, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 24).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 27 | 2 | L ▲ |
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)
3 fines totaling $236,148.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 8, 2026 | Fine | $82,690 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | Fine | $137,865 |
| Dec 6, 2023 | Fine | $15,593 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | New Jersey avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 7.54 | 3.88 | 3.95 | top 1% in New Jersey; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.43 | 0.67 | 0.69 | bottom 28% in New Jersey; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 6.76 | 3.53 | 3.50 | top 1% in New Jersey; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.50 | 0.48 | bottom 24% in New Jersey; bottom 27% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 0.0 | 39.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 37.7 | 42.9 | — |
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 7.70, RN 0.44, weekend 6.90. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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 - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sage Operations NJ LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/22/2019 |
| Satt, Avraham | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 50% | 11/22/2019 |
| Tennenbaum, Samuel | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 50% | 11/22/2019 |
| Mendell, Elyze | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/22/2019 |
| Tennenbaum, Samuel | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/22/2019 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "How often do you evaluate your nurse aides and what ongoing training do they receive?"
- "Who reviews your menus, and can I see this week's menu and join my family member for a meal?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berlin Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 1.2 mi | Berlin, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Subacute at Autumn Lake Healthcare | 6.4 mi | Voorhees, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Voorhees | 6.7 mi | Voorhees, NJ | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Lions Gate | 6.7 mi | Voorhees, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Echelon Care & Rehab | 6.8 mi | Voorhees, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Voorhees Pediatric Facility | 6.8 mi | Voorhees, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Laurel Manor Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center | 7.0 mi | Stratford, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Cedar Grove Respiratory and Nursing Center | 7.5 mi | Williamstown, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Complete Care at Kresson View, LLC | 7.5 mi | Voorhees, NJ | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Complete Care at Voorhees, LLC | 7.6 mi | Voorhees, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Pines at Medford | 7.7 mi | Medford, NJ | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Medford Leas | 8.3 mi | Medford, NJ | ★★★★★ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 315297.