New JerseyOxford

Warren Haven Rehab and Nursing Center

350 Oxford Road, Oxford, NJ 07863 · Warren County · 180 certified beds · avg 79 residents/day · certified since Nov 1, 1991

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$156,485
Fines, last 3 years
3.31
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

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, one-off · Sep 25, 2023 · F-0600

The 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.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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: Oct 25, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, repeated · Jul 18, 2022 · F-0689

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: Aug 22, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (19)

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
Apr 24, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 24, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Dec 24, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Dec 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 24, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 25, 2023▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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.
Sep 25, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 25, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Sep 25, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Sep 25, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Sep 25, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 25, 2023D · 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 18, 2022▲ H · Actual harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jul 18, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit.
Jul 18, 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 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Jul 18, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards.
Jul 18, 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 4).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202271H ▲
202371J ▲
202440F
202610D

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 $156,485.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 25, 2023Fine$156,485

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)3.313.883.95bottom 25% in New Jersey; bottom 27% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.470.670.69bottom 36% in New Jersey; bottom 33% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.863.533.50bottom 13% in New Jersey; bottom 24% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.320.500.48bottom 33% in New Jersey; bottom 36% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)52.239.745.8bottom 18% in New Jersey; bottom 31% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)55.637.742.9bottom 16% in New Jersey; bottom 28% 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 3.12, RN 0.44, weekend 2.70. Staffing rating: 1/5.

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: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Farkas, ZevIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest25%09/01/2015
JL Warren 1 LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest50%09/01/2015
Schlanger, JosephIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest25%09/01/2015
WHZJ Holdings 1 LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%09/01/2015
Farkas, ZevIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE08/30/2019
Farkas, ZevIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/30/2019
Schlanger, JosephIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2015

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
Forest Manor HCC7.5 miBlairstown, NJ★★★☆☆3/5
Heath Village7.6 miHackettstown, NJ★★★★☆4/5
Little Brook Nursing and Convalescent Home8.0 miCalifon, NJ★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Clover Rest Home10.0 miColumbia, NJ★★★★★5/5
Slate Belt Health & Rehabilitation Center12.2 miBangor, PA★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Lopatcong Center13.1 miPhillipsburg, NJ★★★☆☆2/5
Complete Care at Brakeley Park13.1 miPhillipsburg, NJ★★☆☆☆2/5
Country Arch Care Center14.2 miPittstown, NJ★★★★★4/5
Complete Care at Phillipsburg, LLC14.3 miPhillipsburg, NJ★★★☆☆4/5
Gardens at Easton, the15.7 miEaston, PA★★★★☆4/5
Gardens for Memory Care at Easton, the15.8 miEaston, PA★★★☆☆3/5
Sapphire Care and Rehab Center16.2 miEast Stroudsburg, PA★☆☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Oxford →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 315304.