← Back to search results

BRIGHTON GARDENS OF EDISON

EDISON, NJ · Middlesex County · For profit - Limited Liability company · 30 certified beds

📍 1801 Oak Tree Road, Edison, NJ 08820  ·  📞 (732) 767-1031

Medicare ID: 315351  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Feb 19, 2026

Overall Safety Score
75
out of 100
Generally Positive
Component Scores
97
Inspection
100
Staffing
36
Enforcement
✓ None
Complaints
22
Quality
📋 Last inspected: February 19, 2026 📦 CMS data as of: May 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
97
Staffing
100
Enforcement
36
Complaints
100
Quality Outcomes
22

What the numbers mean

BRIGHTON GARDENS OF EDISON scored 75 out of 100 — 6 points above the state average of 69.

📋 Inspections: 28 citations over the last 36 months — 1 more than the state average (27). 1 was rated serious (G+) — an inspector determined it caused or risked harm to a resident. 1 finding recurred across inspection cycles — indicating a problem that was not fixed.

👥 Staffing: Staffing levels are strong — RN hours and total nurse hours per resident are in the favorable range. Adequate staffing is one of the most important factors in resident safety.

⚠️ Penalties & enforcement: CMS has recorded 1 enforcement action totaling $33,374 against this facility. Penalties are only issued after a facility fails two levels of regulatory review — meaning this is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation. Ask for a written explanation of every fine and what corrective actions were taken.

💬 Complaints: Low complaint activity — few formal complaints from residents or families have triggered inspections. Ask if there is a family council you can speak with.

🚨 Resident quality outcomes: Multiple quality measures are well below national benchmarks — residents may experience higher rates of falls, pain, or hospitalizations than at comparable facilities. Ask management about their improvement plans.

🔍 Most cited areas: The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster., The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.. The full report provides the complete citation record with dates, severity levels, and plain-English descriptions.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

28
Total citations
State avg: 26.5
1
Serious (G+)
State avg: 0.8
1
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

19
3
Hazardous Areas & Fire Risks
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
3
Electrical & Utility Safety
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.

⚖ Penalties & Enforcement

Federal civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are only issued after a facility has failed two levels of regulatory review — meaning problems were found on inspection and the facility could not rebut the findings. This is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation.

$33,374
Total federal fines
1
Enforcement action

⚠ Each enforcement action required CMS to make a separate non-compliance determination — meaning this facility failed two levels of regulatory review before any fine was issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective steps were taken.

📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
📊
Enforcement score: 36/100 — 37 points below the state average of 73/100 — worse than most comparable facilities. A score below 70 indicates a meaningful enforcement history that warrants direct conversation with facility management.
Serious Citations That May Have Triggered Enforcement
Physician visits & orders — No harm, could worsen · Feb 19, 2026
Fire safety: hazardous areas must be protected — No harm, could worsen · Oct 16, 2024
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing — No harm, could worsen · Oct 16, 2024
Federal Enforcement Actions on Record
Date Type Amount / Length
Jun 27, 2023 Fine $33,374

Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog — federal civil monetary penalties & payment denials, 2023–present.

🩹

Resident Wellbeing — Key Indicators

These are the measures families ask about most. They come from CMS clinical assessments of every resident — not just inspection reports. Stars (★) count toward the official CMS quality star rating.

Antipsychotic medication use
10.3% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. High use can signal residents being over-medicated rather than receiving attentive care.
Re-hospitalized after discharge
29.9% lower is better
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. Risk-adjusted for resident health.
Hospitalization rate
4.5% lower is better
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year. Adjusted for how sick residents were.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures & Medicare claims data. Scores shown are the most recent 4-quarter averages for long-stay residents.

Track this facility with free email alerts

Get notified when new inspections, citations, score changes, or enforcement actions are published for this facility.

No account or payment required. Enter your email and we will save this facility-watch request.

What to know about Brighton Gardens Of Edison

Brighton Gardens Of Edison is a Medicare-certified nursing home in Edison, Nj with 30 certified beds. Its current Senior Care Report Card score is 75/100, placing it in the Generally Positive range. The latest CMS survey date in our data is Feb 19, 2026. Over the last 36 months, our CMS citation data shows 28 citations, including 1 serious finding and 1 repeat finding. Families comparing this facility should pay close attention to penalties and enforcement, quality outcomes before scheduling a tour or accepting placement. Ownership type on file: For profit - Limited Liability company.

🟢
Overall Assessment — Generally Positive  ·  75/100
This facility performs well overall. A few areas are worth reviewing before making a final decision.
What to do next: Worth considering. Check the specific areas flagged below during your facility tour.
Federal Penalty: $33,374
CMS has imposed civil monetary penalties totaling $33,374 against this facility. Penalties are only levied after a separate non-compliance determination — meaning a facility must fail two levels of regulatory review before a fine is issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective actions were taken.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Inspection record is above average — few deficiencies, no serious findings.
👥 Staffing
Staffing levels are adequate — RN hours and nurse-to-resident ratios meet or exceed benchmarks.
⚖ Penalties
Facility has received federal fines or enforcement sanctions. Requires direct explanation from management.
💬 Complaints
Complaint activity is low — few formal complaints filed by residents or families.
Multiple quality measures are below national benchmarks. Ask management directly about resident care practices.
⚠ Serious Findings on Record: 1 citation(s) where inspectors found actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents. See Section D for the full details and ask management how each was resolved.
Score breakdown — the numbers behind this assessment
👥 Staffing 100
What it measures RN hours per resident per day, total nurse hours, and RN turnover rate.
💡 Understaffing is the strongest single predictor of poor inspection outcomes.
📋 Inspection 97
What it measures Number, severity (A–L), and scope of deficiencies found. Repeat findings carry extra weight.
💡 Every citation in Section D feeds directly into this score.
⚖ Penalties 36
What it measures Whether CMS escalated from a deficiency citation to actual financial or operational sanctions.
💡 A penalty means the facility already failed a second level of regulatory review.
💬 Complaints 100
What it measures Volume of complaint-triggered inspections and the share that were substantiated.
💡 Complaint surveys are unannounced — they often surface issues annual surveys miss.
🎯 Quality outcomes 22
What it measures Resident outcome measures: falls, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic use, weight loss, hospitalizations.
💡 Reflects the lived experience of residents beyond what inspectors observe.

Each pillar scores 0–100 and is combined into the overall score. A strong overall can mask a weak pillar — compare all four and see how they stack against the state average in Section B.

🏗 How This Facility Compares to NJ State Averages

Comparing a facility to others in the same state puts its score in context. A facility might have 8 citations and that could be above average in one state and below in another. Green means this facility is doing better than its peers; red means it's falling short.

Metric This facility NJ avg vs. State
Overall score
The combined Senior Care Report Card score out of 100.
75 69 ▲ Better than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
97 53 ▲ Better than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
100 57 ▲ Better than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
36 73 ▼ Worse than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
100 91 ▲ Better than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
22 79 ▼ Worse than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
28 26.5 ▼ Worse than state avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
1 0.8 ✓ At avg

📅 Inspection Timeline

State health inspectors visit nursing homes on a regular cycle — typically every 12 to 15 months — and document every deficiency they find. The timeline below shows the date and scale of each inspection visit over the past several years. A pattern of worsening surveys is a red flag even if the most recent visit looks clean.

2026-02-19
1 citations
2024-10-16
15 citations
2023-06-27
12 citations  (1 serious)

Bar length proportional to citation count. Red = serious findings (severity G+). Orange = elevated. Green = low.

📄 Full Citation Record

Every time state inspectors visit a nursing home, they write up anything that doesn’t meet federal standards. Each write-up is called a citation.

Each citation shows what the problem was and how serious it was, using a color-coded badge:

Confused by codes like F0732 or K0363? Use the free inspection report decoder to understand F-tags, fire-safety K-tags, severity letters, and repeat findings. Get the decoder →
Green — No residents harmed Yellow — Risk of harm, no injury Orange — A resident was harmed Red — Life or safety in danger

A Repeat tag means the same problem appeared in a previous inspection — it was not fully corrected the first time. Citations shown cover the last two years.

Survey: 2026-02-19 1 citation(s)
F0727 No harm, could worsen
Physician visits & orders
Survey: 2024-10-16 15 citation(s)
K0291 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: hazardous areas must be protected
Fire safety: hazardous areas must be protected. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0353 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0355 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: portable fire extinguishers
Fire safety: portable fire extinguishers. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0211 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: safe exit routes
Fire safety: safe exit routes. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0511 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: gas, electric and utility systems
Fire safety: gas, electric and utility systems. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0812 No harm, could worsen
Food sanitation & safety
K0324 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: cooking equipment and kitchen protection
Fire safety: cooking equipment and kitchen protection. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0341 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire alarm system installation
Fire safety: fire alarm system installation. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0921 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: equipment grounding
Electrical safety: equipment grounding. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
K0321 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: hazardous rooms and storage areas
Fire safety: hazardous rooms and storage areas. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0623 No harm, could worsen
Notice before transfer or discharge
K0521 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire pump inspection and testing
Fire safety: fire pump inspection and testing. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
F0607 No harm, could worsen
Abuse & neglect prevention policies
F0759 No harm, could worsen
Medication error rate control
F0692 No harm, could worsen
Nutrition & hydration status
🩹

How Are Residents Doing?

Inspections tell you whether a facility followed the rules. These measures tell you how residents actually fared — whether they fell, experienced pain, lost weight, or were over-medicated. CMS collects this data through regular clinical assessments that nurses complete for every resident. Unlike inspections, which happen once a year, these assessments happen continuously.

🕐 Mixed picture: Some quality measures look good, others warrant a closer look. Use the details below to identify which specific areas to ask about during your visit.

How to read these cards: Each card shows one measure. Lower percentages are better for most (e.g. fewer falls), but higher is better for vaccination rates and community return. ★ Star rating marks measures CMS uses in its official quality star rating.

Long Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Daily activity decline
16.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost the ability to dress, eat, or move around independently over the past year. Rising rates can signal that residents aren't receiving enough physical therapy or that staffing is too thin to support mobility.
★ Star rating
Urinary tract infections
5.7% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who had a urinary tract infection. While some UTIs are unavoidable, high rates can point to poor hydration practices, catheter hygiene, or rushed care routines.
★ Star rating
Antipsychotic medication use
10.3% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. These medications carry serious risks for older adults. High use often signals that a facility is medicating residents to manage behavior instead of addressing needs through attentive, person-centered care.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing on…
0.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure u…
21.3% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an…
19.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
Physical restraints used
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents physically restrained (lap belts, side rails). Federal regulations require restraints to be a last resort. High use is a red flag for understaffed facilities cutting corners on behavioral care.
Signs of depression
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents showing symptoms of depression. Social isolation, lack of meaningful activities, and poor staffing all contribute. This measure reflects the emotional quality of life inside the facility.
Unexplained weight loss
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost 5% or more of body weight unexpectedly. This can indicate inadequate nutrition, difficulty eating without assistance, or unaddressed medical issues.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
100.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Pneumonia vaccination rate
33.3% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against pneumococcal pneumonia — one of the leading causes of death in older adults. Higher is better.
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or wor…
27.5% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or worsened bowel or bladder incontinence
Short Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Worsening depression symptoms
2.3% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents whose depression got measurably worse over the past year — despite being in a care facility.
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and a…
99.1% lower is better
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Emergency room visits (short-stay)
99.0% lower is better
Share of short-stay residents sent to the ER during their recovery stay. ER visits are disruptive for recovering patients and sometimes avoidable with better on-site clinical management.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures (2025Q1-2025Q4). Collected via standardized clinical assessments — not inspector visits.

🏥

Hospitalization & ER Visits

These numbers come directly from Medicare claims — real billing records of every time a resident was hospitalized or sent to the emergency room. They\'re among the most objective measures of care quality because they can\'t be influenced by how a facility writes up an assessment. The adjusted score is the most meaningful number — it\'s been corrected to account for how sick residents were, so a facility treating frailer patients isn\'t unfairly penalized.

What to look for: An adjusted score significantly above the expected score means this facility hospitalizes residents more often than peer facilities with similar patient populations — that gap is worth asking about directly.

Short Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Re-hospitalized after going home
29.9% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 34.4% Expected: 27.4%
▲ Higher than expected — worth asking about
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. A high rate suggests residents were discharged before they were ready, or that the facility didn't coordinate follow-up care well. Risk-adjusted so facilities treating sicker residents aren't unfairly penalized.
★ Star rating
Hospitalization rate (long-stay)
4.5% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 4.6% Expected: 11.4%
✓ Better than expected for similar residents
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year, adjusted for how ill they were. A high rate relative to expectations suggests the facility may be sending residents to the hospital for issues that skilled nursing staff should be able to manage on-site.

Source: CMS Medicare claims data. Scores are risk-adjusted — they account for how ill residents were when admitted so facilities treating sicker populations aren\'t penalized for it.

💬 Questions to Ask Before Touring

These questions are generated specifically from this facility's score profile and citation history — not a generic checklist. A facility's willingness to answer them openly, and the quality of their answers, is itself an important signal. Bring this list when you tour or call.

  1. This facility has a significant CMS enforcement history. Can you identify each action in the past three years, what it was for, and what systemic — not just procedural — changes were made to prevent recurrence?
  2. Resident quality measures for this facility are well below national benchmarks. What specific initiatives — with measurable targets — are in place to address fall rates, antipsychotic medication use, and pressure wound prevention?
  3. 1 citation in the public record were rated as causing actual harm to a resident. Can you describe what occurred in each case and what specific safeguards are now in place?
  4. Can we speak privately with two or three current residents or their families?

👪 Family Decision Guide

This guide translates this facility's data into practical next steps for families. It is not a recommendation for or against placement — it is a structured framework for the conversations you need to have before making a decision.

✓ Positives to confirm

  • Inspection record is above average — verify improvements are maintained
  • Staffing levels appear adequate — ask about weekend and night coverage
  • Low complaint activity — ask if there is a family council you can speak with
  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • Penalty history present — ask what enforcement actions occurred and outcomes
  • Serious-harm citations on record — require a written explanation of corrective action
  • Always speak with at least two current residents or family members independently

📈 Score History

The score is recalculated every time CMS releases updated data (typically monthly). A consistent downward trend is more concerning than a single low score. An improving trend after a period of poor performance may indicate management changes are taking effect. Use the free facility-watch form above to get email alerts when this facility's record changes materially.

2026-06-16
75 — Good

🏢 Ownership & Operators

Ownership matters because large corporate chains sometimes prioritize cost controls over care quality. CMS requires every nursing home to disclose its owners, operators, and managing employees. Frequent ownership changes can disrupt staffing and operations — which is why we flag facilities that changed ownership in the past 12 months.

🔗 FALCO, DENISE operates 8 facilities across FL, PA, VA, MD. A mid-size operator; compare scores across their other facilities if evaluating multiple options.
Owner / Operator Role Ownership % Effective
FALCO, DENISE Individual 1970-01-01
SEKEL, WENDY Individual 1970-01-01
WELLS, ANJA Individual 1970-01-01
PAINTER, DAVID Individual 1970-01-01
KESSLER, THOMAS Individual 1970-01-01
FRANTZ, EDWARD Individual 1970-01-01
ROYAL, PATRICIA Individual 1970-01-01
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT INC Organization 1970-01-01
AKRIDGE, ULYSSES Individual 1970-01-01
VAIDYA, KETANKUMAR Individual 1970-01-01
COELHO, ANDREW Individual 1970-01-01
THOMPSON, LISA Individual 1970-01-01
WELLTOWER INC Organization 1970-01-01
O'RIORDAN, DAMIEN Individual 1970-01-01
HARRIS, TONY Individual 1970-01-01
WELLTOWER TRS HOLDCO LLC Organization 1970-01-01

🔔 Monthly tracking is now free

We check CMS data monthly. Use the tracking form above and we will email you when new citations appear, scores change, or enforcement actions are added.

📋
Monthly report update
New citation alerts
📈
Score trend tracking
🏠 Verify this data on Medicare.gov
All data in this report comes from the CMS Care Compare database. You can review the official public record directly on Medicare.gov — including the full inspection narrative, star ratings, and any recent enforcement actions.
View on Medicare.gov ↗

This report reflects publicly available CMS data only and is updated monthly. Severity codes and narratives are reproduced directly from the CMS health inspection database. Senior Care Report Card scores are independently computed and are not affiliated with or endorsed by CMS or Medicare.gov.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Senior Care Report Card safety score for Brighton Gardens Of Edison?
Brighton Gardens Of Edison has an independently computed Safety Score of 75 out of 100, based on CMS inspection findings, staffing levels, penalty history, complaint volume, and quality measures.
Where is Brighton Gardens Of Edison located?
Brighton Gardens Of Edison is located in Edison, NJ. View the full address, phone number, and a map at the top of this report.
How many beds does Brighton Gardens Of Edison have?
Brighton Gardens Of Edison is certified for 30 beds in the CMS Care Compare dataset.
When was the most recent CMS health inspection at Brighton Gardens Of Edison?
The most recent CMS health inspection summarized in this report was completed on February 19, 2026. CMS publishes a new inspection cycle approximately every 12 months.
What does the Senior Care Report Card Safety Score measure?
The Safety Score (0-100) combines five public-data signals: CMS health inspection severity, nursing staffing hours per resident, civil monetary penalties, complaint counts, and quality measures. Methodology and weightings are documented at /how-it-works/.
Is the report on Brighton Gardens Of Edison affiliated with the facility?
No. This report is independently computed from public CMS Care Compare data and is not affiliated with Brighton Gardens Of Edison, CMS, or Medicare.gov. It is provided as a research aid for families.

Data source: CMS Care Compare · Methodology · State Ombudsman

This report uses public CMS nursing home data and simplified scoring to help families ask better questions. It is not a recommendation, ranking, medical opinion, legal opinion, or substitute for an in-person visit. Source data last published by CMS: May 27, 2026.