Health Center at Bloomingdale: Fall Risk Record Failure - NJ
The resident, identified in inspection records only as Resident 114, had fallen one to two times in the three months before coming to the facility. That history was there, recorded on the admission form dated October 2, 2024, under the section for falls in the past three months. But when inspectors reviewed the fall risk scoring on that same form, something didn't add up. The score assigned to Resident 114 was 13.0, and the accompanying care plan, initiated the following day on October 3, 2024, flagged the resident as being at risk for falls and injury related to an unsteady gait.
The inspection, conducted August 28, 2025, turned up the discrepancy as part of a complaint investigation. Inspectors found that the "Admission/readmission Evaluation V6-V2" form contained information that was not accurately assessed. In plain terms: the record used to guide this resident's care did not correctly reflect their own history.
Accurate intake assessment is where fall prevention begins. A resident who has already fallen once or twice in a three-month window is telling the facility something important about their body and their risk. That information is supposed to flow from the admission form into the care plan, from the care plan into daily decisions about supervision, mobility aids, and room setup. When the assessment is wrong at the start, everything built on top of it is built on a flawed foundation.
The facility's Corporate Director of Clinical Reimbursement was interviewed by the surveyor at 9:15 that morning. The director did not provide further information. That was the entirety of the facility's explanation.
The violation was cited under F0641, which covers the accuracy of assessments. The level of harm was listed as minimal harm or potential for actual harm, and the number of residents affected was noted as few.
Those classifications deserve a closer look. "Minimal harm or potential for actual harm" is not the same as no harm. It means inspectors could not confirm that Resident 114 was hurt as a direct result of the inaccurate record, but they also could not rule out that the flawed assessment shaped the care this person received during their stay. A care plan built on an incorrect fall risk score may have meant less monitoring, different equipment, different staffing attention, than the resident's actual history warranted.
Resident 114 came into this facility having already fallen. The facility's own form acknowledged that. And then the risk score attached to that history did not reflect it accurately. The care plan that followed was built on that score.
The facility is regulated under New Jersey Administrative Code 8:39-33.2(d), which governs resident assessment requirements for licensed nursing facilities in the state. The federal citation runs alongside that state standard.
What the inspection record does not contain is any indication that the facility caught this error on its own, corrected it, or identified how many other admission assessments may have had similar problems. The surveyor found it. The Corporate Director of Clinical Reimbursement, when asked, said nothing useful.
Fall-related injuries are among the most serious and most common harms that occur in nursing facilities. Broken hips, head trauma, and the fear and immobility that follow a serious fall can permanently alter a resident's trajectory. Facilities collect fall histories precisely because past falls are one of the strongest predictors of future falls. That data is supposed to matter.
For Resident 114, it was collected. It was written down. And then, somewhere between the history section and the risk score on the same form, it stopped mattering the way it should have.
The inspection closed with the deficiency on the books and the Corporate Director of Clinical Reimbursement having offered no explanation for how it happened.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Health Center At Bloomingdale from 2025-08-28 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: September 30, 2026 · Our methodology
HEALTH CENTER AT BLOOMINGDALE in BLOOMINGDALE, NJ was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 28, 2025.
The resident, identified in inspection records only as Resident 114, had fallen one to two times in the three months before coming to the facility.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.