Hearth Record

Dove Hospice Services of New Jersey, LLC

A hospice in Manalapan, New Jersey 07726

198 Route 9, Ste 200, Manalapan, New Jersey 07726. (732) 547-9436.

CMS’s own record, on Care Compare

Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare.

The short answer

Record last released by CMS on Oct 23, 2026.

The last 24 months 10 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jan 2024. Most serious: Standard-level. Every month

Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.

What these words mean3
Star ratings
CMS rates some kinds of place from 1 to 5 stars, more stars meaning better on CMS’s own measures for that kind: for a nursing home, its health inspections, staffing and quality measures. A rating is CMS’s summary of those measures; it doesn’t promise good care. Source: CMS, Care Compare and the Five-Star Quality Rating System.
Inspection (survey)
A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
Deficiency, citation, violation
What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.

What did inspectors find?

10 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 28 hospices serving ZIP code 07726 had 5.5.

The last inspection on record was on Jan 10, 2024: a reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

Source:

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

When those deficiencies happened

10 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jan 2024. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

10 deficiencies by month over the last 3 years. Each cell is one month.
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2023 NovDec
2024 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2025 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2026 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct

Hover or focus a month to read it.

No visit on record Visited, nothing cited A stronger orange is more serious, on its source’s own levels, read onto four bands: from the least serious it publishes to the most
Source:

Hearth Record drew this from the dates and levels in the source’s own records.

Each deficiency, as cited

Rule titles as CMS’s inspectors cite them, set in sentence case.

Source:

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Jan 10, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care10 deficiencies
  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6))

    The inspectors’ words, 616 words

    “Upon patient record review, 11 of 19 records (Patient #1,#3,#5,#6,#7,#8,#10,#11,#12,#13,#14) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications, including herbal remedies that could affect drug therapy. This review includes, but is not limited to: • Effectiveness of drug therapy • Drug side effects • Actual or potential drug interactions • Duplicate drug therapy • Drug therapy currently associated with laboratory monitoring Patient #1: The medication profile dated 4/27/23 contained aminocaproic acid 250mg/ml of IV solution. Apply 1 application topically 4x/day as needed and no longer than 10 days. This remained on the medication profile. The order was also unclear as to the location to apply the solution. In addition, Acetaminophen 650 mg rectal supp. Administer 1 supp rectal q6h as needed for constipation. Insert 1 q6h prn pain or fever. There was not evidence of a parameter for fever, and Acetaminophen is not typically indicated for constipation. Also the record indicated that the patient was on oxygen 2-4L/min prn. There was not evidence of a route and this was not on the medication profile. Patient #3: The medication profile contained zinc oxide 10% topical, 1 application topical 3x/day q shift skin protectant without evidence of a specific location, and Lidocaine topical 4%, apply 1 patch topically daily. There was not evidence of a specific location. In addition oxygen 2-5L/min via nasal cannula continuously as needed. It could not be determined if oxygen was continuously or as needed. Also duplicate orders (from dates of 11/21/23 and 1/3/24) for Rifaxim 550 mg oral tabs 2x/day. Patient #5: The medication profile included Tylenol 325 mg, 2 tabs q6h prn pain, Percocet 325-5, 1 BID prn severe pain, and Acetaminophen-oxycodone 325-5, 1 BID prn pain, and Acetaminophen 500mg, 2 tabs BID mild pain. The Percocet was in duplicate and there was not evidence of a maximum allowable dose for acetaminophen per 24h. In addition, Lidocaine 5%, 1 patch daily for pain without evidence of a location. Also oxygen via nasal cannula, 2-5L/min continuous as needed. Patient #6: The medication profile contained Acetaminophen 650 mg rectal supp. Administer 1 supp rectal q6h as needed for constipation. Insert 1 q6h prn pain or fever. There was not evidence of a parameter for fever, and Acetaminophen is not typically indicated for constipation. Patient #7,#10: Acetaminophen was ordered for constipation or fever with no evidence of a parameter for fever. Oxygen was listed as continuous as needed. Patient #7: The patient was on Senna and Dulcolax tablets daily. There was also a Dulcolax supp 1 daily prn constipation and MOM 30 cc daily prn constipation without evidence of which prn drug to administer first and under what circumstances to administer the second prn laxative. Patient #8: The medication profile contained Acetaminophen 1 q6h pain or fever with no fever parameter and Tylenol 500 mg, 2 tabs bid, no max allowable dose. O2 continuous as needed and Miralax 17 Gm daily as needed without evidence of a diluent. Also Cipro 500 bid x3 days dated 11/24/23 and Doxycycline 100mg 2x/day for 7 days dated 11/28/23 remained on the medication profile. Patient #11: Morphine 20mg/ml for pain or SOB. Take 0.25 ml listed in duplicate, dates 12/12/22 and 10/23/23. Patient #12: Acetaminophen 650 rectal supp q6h fever >101 and acetaminophen 325, 2 tabs q6h prn pain with no max allowable dose. Also O2 continuous as needed. Patient #13: Tylenol 325, 2 tabs q6h prn mild pain, Acetaminophen-hydrocodone 325-10 2x/day and Acetaminophen-Hydrocodone 325-2.5 1 q6h prn. No evidence of max allowable dose. Patient #14: Acetaminophen 325 mg, 2 tabs q6h prn in duplicate. In addition, Polyethylene Glycol 17 Gm daily constipation without evidence of a diluent.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 records (Patient #1,#3,#11) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment includes a bereavement component which includes the needs of the patient’s family and other individuals focusing on the social, spiritual, and cultural factors that may impact their ability to cope with the patient’s death. Information gathered from the initial bereavement assessment is incorporated into the plan of care and is considered in the bereavement plan of care. Patient #1,#3,#11: There was not evidence of a bereavement assessment.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 392 words

    “Upon patient record review, 7 of 19 records (Patient #2,#4,#5,#7,#9#12,#14) did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice has developed an individualized written plan of care for each patient that reflects patient/family goals and interventions based on the problems identified in the initial, comprehensive, and updated comprehensive assessments. The plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions. Patient #2: The patient was admitted with a diagnosis of cerebral atherosclerosis. She was agitated, had a cognitive decline, with behaviors, was confused and has frequent falls. There was not evidence that the plan of care reflected patient/family goals and interventions based on the problems identified in the initial, comprehensive, and updated comprehensive assessments related to her neurological problems. Patient #4: The patient was admitted with a diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the bronchus/lung. There was not evidence of a care plan reflecting respiratory disease. Patient #5: The record indicated that the patient was on Eliquis 5mg, 1 tablet BID. There was not evidence that the plan of care included safety measures in regards to bleeding precautions. Patient #7: The patient was admitted with a diagnosis of cerebral atherosclerosis. The patient was non-verbal dependent in 6/6 ADL’s, incontinent, required a Hoyer lift, must be fed and was on aspiration precautions. There was not evidence of a care plan that reflected the patient’s neurological status. In addition she had a stage I wound on her buttocks, and there was not evidence of a care plan for wounds or skin integrity. Patient #9: The patient was admitted with a diagnosis of COPD. There was not evidence of a care plan reflecting respiratory disease. Corrected on site. Patient #12: The record indicated that the patient was on Eliquis 2.5mg, 1 tablet BID. There was not evidence that the plan of care included safety measures in regards to bleeding precautions. Patient #14: The record indicated that the patient was on Eliquis 5mg, 1 tablet BID. There was not evidence that the plan of care included safety measures in regards to bleeding precautions. In addition, the patient was admitted with a diagnosis of cerebral atherosclerosis. She had behaviors, anxiety, depression, sun-downing and was aggressive and uncooperative at times. There was not evidence of a care plan that reflected the patient’s neurological status. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 152 words

    “Upon patient record review, 10 of 19 records (Patient #1,#2,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9,#10,#11) did not have evidence the plan of care must includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including the following: • A detailed statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the specific patient and family needs • The IDG demonstrates a proactive approach in developing each patient’s plan of care by planning ahead for anticipated patient changes and needs. Decisions should reflect the patient/family preferences rather than be solely a response to a crisis. Patient #1: The visit frequency for the skilled nurse was 2x/week and 14 prn. Patient #2,#8: The visit frequency for the skilled nurse was 1x/week and 14 prn. Patient #4,#5,#7,#9,#10,#11: The visit frequency for the skilled nurse was 1x/week and 10 prn. Patient #6: The visit frequency for the skilled nurse was 1x/week and 13 prn.”

    Rule L0547. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))

    The inspectors’ words, 389 words

    “Upon patient record review, 10 of 19 records (Patient #1,#3,#5,#6,#7,#8,#10,#12,#13,#14) did not have evidence the plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including medications and treatments. Patient #1: The record indicated that the patient was on oxygen 2-4L/min prn. There was not evidence of a route. In addition, Acetaminophen 650 mg rectal supp. Administer 1 supp rectal q6h as needed. Insert 1 q6h prn pain or fever. There was not evidence of a parameter for fever. Patient #3: The record contained an order for zinc oxide 10% topical, 1 application topical 3x/day q shift skin protectant without evidence of a specific location, and Lidocaine topical 4%, apply 1 patch topically daily without evidence of a specific location. Patient #5: The medication profile included Tylenol 325 mg, 2 tabs q6h prn pain, Percocet 325-5, 1 BID prn severe pain, and Acetaminophen-oxycodone 325-5, 1 BID prn pain, and Acetaminophen 500mg, 2 tabs BID mild pain. There was not evidence of a maximum allowable dose for acetaminophen per 24h. In addition, Lidocaine 5%, 1 patch daily for pain without evidence of a location. Patient #6: The record contained an order for Acetaminophen 650 mg rectal supp. Administer 1 supp rectal q6h as needed. Insert 1 q6h prn pain or fever. There was not evidence of a parameter for fever. Patient #7,#10: Acetaminophen was ordered for fever with no evidence of a parameter for fever. Patient #7: In addition the patient was on Senna and Dulcolax tablets daily. There was also a Dulcolax supp 1 daily prn constipation and MOM 30 cc daily prn constipation without evidence of which prn drug to administer first and under what circumstances to administer the second prn laxative. Patient #8: The record contained an order for Acetaminophen 1 q6h pain or fever with no fever parameter and Tylenol 500 mg, 2 tabs bid, no max allowable dose and Miralax 17 Gm daily as needed without evidence of a diluent. Patient #12: Acetaminophen 650 rectal supp q6h fever >101 and acetaminophen 325, 2 tabs q6h prn pain with no max allowable dose. Patient #13: Tylenol 325, 2 tabs q6h, Acetaminophen-hydrocodone 325-10 2x/day and Acetaminophen-Hydrocodone 325-2.5 1 q6h prn. No evidence of max allowable dose. Polyethylene Glycol 17 Gm daily constipation without evidence of a diluent.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))

    “Upon client record review, 2 of 19 record (Patient #1,#5) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #1: The routine skilled nurse visit frequency was 2x/week. For the week of 11/5/23-11/11/23, the record indicated only 1 visit. Patient #5: The volunteer visit frequency was 2m2 from 11/1/23-12/31/23. The record indicated only 1 visit in December.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 264 words

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 19 records (Patient #2,#5,#12,#13,#14) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are: • Assigned to a specific patient by a registered nurse that is a member of the interdisciplinary group • Written patient care instructions for a hospice aide must be prepared by a Registered Nurse who is responsible for the supervision of a hospice aide as specified under paragraph (h) of 418.76 • There is evidence in the patient record that the plan of care; indicate what tasks are to be done by the Aide and the frequency of these tasks. The use of “PRN” or “per patient choice”, for any task, whether personal care or non-personal care tasks, are not acceptable Patient #2: The aide plan of care indicated to shower. Provide a bed bath if patient not showered. Bed, shower prn as patient agrees/tolerates. Corrected on site. Patient #5: The record indicated that the patient was on Eliquis 5mg, 1 tablet BID. There was not evidence that the aide plan of care included bleeding precautions. Corrected onsite. Patient #12: The record indicated that the patient was on Eliquis 2.5mg, 1 tablet BID. There was not evidence that the aide plan of care contained bleeding precautions. Patient #13: The aide plan of care indicated to provide hygiene-bath , and provide complete am care. The directions were not specific. Corrected on site. Patient #14: The record indicated that the patient was on Eliquis 5mg, 1 tablet BID. There was not evidence that the aide plan of care included bleeding precautions.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

  • Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 237 words

    “Upon patient record review 6 of 19 records (Patient #1,#2,#8,#9,#10,#12) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a hospice aide provides services that are: • Ordered by the interdisciplinary group • Included in the plan of care Patient #1: The aide plan of care indicated to shower and shampoo at all visits. On 1/4/24, the aide documentation indicated ‘not applicable’ for these tasks. Patient #2: The aide plan of care indicated to make bed, assist with dressing, shower, peri care and skin care with each visit. For the dates of 12/28/23, 1/3/24, and 1/4/24, the aide documentation revealed ‘not applicable.’ Patient #8: The aide visit frequency was 5x/week. There was not evidence of visits on 12/13/23, 12/14/23, or 12/15/23. Patient #9: The aide visit frequency was 2x/week. There was not evidence of an aide visit. Patient #10: The aide visit frequency from 9/27/23-12/23/23 was 2x/week. There was not evidence of a visit by the aide since 11/3/23. Patient #12: The aide plan of care listed the task of shower and shampoo to be performed at every visit. Upon observation visit and interview with the aide, she indicated that she showers and shampoos 2x/week and the patient sits on the commode or a chair in the bathroom and the bath is provided in this manor on the other days. The observed visit was the day a bath on the commode was provided by the aide.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(7))

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 19 records (Patient #15) did not evidence that each patient record contains physician orders. Patient #15: The patient was discharged due to no longer meeting hospice criteria. There was not evidence of a discharge order from the Medical Director..”

    Rule L0678. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 19 records (Patient #1) did not have evidence that all entries are legible, clear, complete, and appropriately authenticated and dated in accordance with the organizations policies and procedures and currently accepted standards of practice. Electronic signatures are acceptable as long the hospice is following appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to the patient records. Patient #1: The Patient Notification of Hospice Non-Covered Items, Services, and Drugs of a different patient was in the electronic medical record of this patient. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Jan 10, 2024Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care10 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Jan 27, 2021.
  • Ownership: for-profit.
  • No deficiency or on record in the last three years.
Source:

CMS, Hospice General Information. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Has anything been proven against it?

  • CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospices, so none are shown.
  • 0 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
Source:

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Who does the caring?

  • From Medicare claims (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024): 10.1 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 6.6% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 92.6% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 37% at home, 39% in assisted living, 25% in a nursing facility.
Source:

CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day10.1 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends6.6%
Visits near death92.6% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Bond Street Capital LLC owns 29.16% directly since Jun 2, 2022; Ramsa Consulting LLC owns 21.67% directly since Jun 2, 2022; Honor Care Health LLC owns 20% directly since Jun 2, 2022; Gk Dove owns 7.5% directly since Jun 2, 2022.
  • 3 owners or officers are people: Evan Jasser (corporate officer, 100%); Mark Pass (managing employee (under contract)); Vallie Koren (managing employee (on the payroll)).
  • No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
  • No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
Source:

CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Organisations CMS lists
OrganisationRoleShareSince
Bond Street Capital LLCOwns 5% or more directly29.16%Jun 2, 2022
Jaden Holdings LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies21.67%Jun 2, 2022
Ramsa Consulting LLCOwns 5% or more directly21.67%Jun 2, 2022
Honor Care Health LLCOwns 5% or more directly20%Jun 2, 2022
Gk DoveOwns 5% or more directly7.5%Jun 2, 2022

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 4 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 83% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 90% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 93.84% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 44.8% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
Source:

CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Ratings and measures, as published
MeasureRating
Family caregiver survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of patients’ family caregivers, 1 to 54 of 5
Hospice Care IndexCMS’s Hospice Care Index, 0 to 10 (higher is better): a point for each of ten measures from Medicare claims on which the hospice meets CMS’s threshold10 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 28 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 07726, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5.5; this one had 10.
Source:

CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

What the record doesn’t say

  • CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospices, so none are shown.
  • Only complaints that led to a citation appear; complaints that didn’t aren’t published.
  • CMS ended its Special Focus Program for hospices with serious problems on Feb 14, 2025, so no hospice is marked as one.
  • Hospice quality measures have a gap from October 2025: CMS replaced its patient assessment then, and public results from the new one (HOPE) are expected around November 2027.

Sources

If you believe something here is wrong, a correction starts with the agency whose record this copies: CMS. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare. If Hearth Record copied something wrongly, it will fix it and log the correction publicly, with its date: how corrections work.

Source:

This copy of the record was made on Oct 27, 2026.

From the hospice

The public record above comes first. Anything the hospice adds will appear here, below it, and say who wrote it.

Replies

None. Replies aren’t open yet. When they open, the hospice will be able to answer any finding for free, and the reply will show beside that finding, unedited and dated.

Paid listing

None. Paid listings aren’t open yet. When they open, anything paid for will say “Paid by the hospice”, and paying will never change a finding, a rating or the order of results.

How to read a record

Four things every record does, shown on an example record made up for this guide.

An example record, made up for this guide

An example nursing home

Made up for this guide: no real place is shown

Not fully inspected in over two years (CMS flag)

11 health citations at the latest inspection cycle

The state average is 14.3.

Source:

CMS, State and US Averages and Health Deficiencies. Released Oct 28, 2026. Updated monthly.

From the homeNone yet. Replies and paid listings aren’t open, and when they open they will sit here, below the record.

1 of 4

Every fact names its source.

Who published it, when, and how often it changes sit beside each fact, with a link to the agency’s own file.

Sign in

A free account keeps your watch list, shortlists, comparisons and saved searches on every device, and can email you when something you watch changes. Browsing never needs one.