The resident, identified as Resident #4 in the October inspection report, had been admitted with complications from a stroke, including generalized muscle weakness and urinary problems. Despite having a near-perfect cognitive score of 13 out of 15 on their quarterly assessment, the resident required complete help from staff for toilet use.
On September 25, physicians ordered removal of the resident's indwelling urinary catheter. The resident's care plan, dating back to August 21, specifically stated under toileting interventions: "I am totally dependent on (1) staff for toilet use."
But inspectors determined the facility failed to follow its own policy for helping residents with activities of daily living.
The facility's policy, last revised in January, required staff to provide "care, treatment and services as appropriate to maintain their ability to carry out activities of daily living." For residents unable to perform these functions independently, the policy mandated "necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene."
The policy also addressed residents with cognitive issues, though this resident was cognitively intact. It instructed staff to identify underlying causes when residents resist care rather than assuming refusal, and suggested approaching residents differently or having other staff members help.
None of this happened for Resident #4.
The resident had been frequently incontinent of bowels according to their quarterly assessment. Combined with their total dependence on staff for toilet use and the removal of their urinary catheter, the resident needed consistent, attentive care to maintain dignity and prevent complications.
State inspectors found the facility violated New Jersey administrative code governing nursing home care standards. The inspection, conducted in response to a complaint, determined that some residents were affected by the facility's failure to provide adequate assistance with daily living activities.
The violation carried a classification of "minimal harm or potential for actual harm," but highlighted a fundamental breakdown in basic care for a vulnerable resident who understood their situation completely.
The resident's medical history painted a picture of someone dealing with the aftermath of a serious stroke. Beyond the cerebral infarction complications, they had arrived at the facility with a urinary tract infection and urine retention issues. Their generalized muscle weakness meant they couldn't manage toileting independently, making staff assistance crucial for their health and dignity.
The timing of the catheter removal made proper toileting assistance even more critical. Without the catheter, the resident would have needed immediate, reliable help getting to and using toilet facilities. Their cognitive awareness meant they would have been fully conscious of any delays or inadequate care.
The facility's written policy acknowledged that residents' abilities to perform daily living activities shouldn't diminish "unless the circumstances of their clinical condition demonstrate that diminishing ADLs are unavoidable." For this resident, whose stroke complications were stable and whose cognitive function remained sharp, there was no clinical reason their toileting care should have been inadequate.
Inspectors noted the policy wasn't being followed, a straightforward conclusion that masked the daily reality for a resident who needed help with one of the most basic human functions.
The August care plan had been clear about the resident's needs. The September physician's order had been documented. The facility's own policy outlined the required approach. Yet the complaint that triggered the state investigation suggested these systems had failed when it mattered most.
For a resident with intact cognitive function, being unable to access proper toileting assistance would have been particularly distressing. Unlike residents with dementia who might not fully understand their situation, Resident #4 would have been acutely aware of any lapses in care.
The inspection found that some residents were affected by the facility's failure to maintain adequate assistance with activities of daily living. The scope suggests this wasn't an isolated incident involving just one resident, but part of a broader pattern of inadequate care.
State inspectors completed their investigation on October 23, documenting violations of New Jersey nursing home regulations. The facility now faces regulatory scrutiny over its failure to provide basic toileting assistance to a stroke survivor who knew exactly what kind of help they needed.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Preferred Care At Old Bridge, LLC from 2025-10-23 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
- View all inspection reports for Preferred Care At Old Bridge, LLC
- Browse all NJ nursing home inspections