515 Brightfield Road, Lutherville, MD 21093 · Baltimore County · (410) 296-1990
110 certified beds, about 82 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215226 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 11, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 33 health citations since September 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $8,021 in the last three years; the largest was $8,021, and the latest is dated January 11, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.66 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.62 of those hours.
62.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Autumn Lake Healthcare, an affiliated group of 59 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's dignified existence was maintained during a meal. This was evident for 1 of several observations made during meal times on the second floor units.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to facilitate care plan meetings for residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #45 and Resident #80) out of 3 residents reviewed for care planning. Care plan meetings are scheduled discussions where the healthcare team reviews a resident's condition, needs, and progress, using information such as the Minimum Data Set (MDS). The team collaborates to set or update care goals and interventions, address concerts, and ensure care is coordinated and individualized, with input from the resident and/or family when possible.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate a resident's needs based on their condition. This was evident for 1 (Resident #45) out of 1 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that proper information was provided to the resident and/or resident representative regarding advanced directives. This was evident for 3 (Resident #4, #8, and #10) out of 6 residents reviewed for advance directives during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure that residents and/or resident representative received complete and written notice of transfer and/or bed hold rights. This deficient practice was evident for 2 (Resident #55 and #84) out of 5 residents review for hospitalization/discharge during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that facility staff failed to accurately code the resident's status on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This failure was evident for 1 resident (Resident #77) out of 8 residents reviewed for MDS assessments during the facility's recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure 1) a resident's comprehensive care plan included a resident's medical need regarding oxygen and medication, 2) to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan to address a resident's significant change in condition related to hospice admission and end-of-life care needs, and 3) to conduct quarterly care plan meetings. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) out of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care, 1 (Resident #5) of 5 residents reviewed for medications,1 resident (Resident #77) out of 1 resident reviewed for hospice care, and 1 (Resident #90) out of 5 complaints reviewed during annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain professional standards of practice related to oxygen orders. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) out of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents received respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice by: 1) failing to ensure respiratory/oxygen equipment was properly labeled and dated, and 2) providing oxygen therapy without a valid physician order and at flow rates inconsistent with prescribed orders. This deficient practice was evident for 2 residents (Residents #1 and #96) out of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory/oxygen therapy during the facility's recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure a geriatric nursing assistant (GNA) maintained an active certification. This deficient practice was evident for 1 (GNA #2) out of 4 GNA employee files reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of records, review of complaints and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) ensure narcotic record books were consistently signed by both incoming and outgoing nurses, 2) ensure that drug records were maintained in a manner that accounted for all controlled drugs and allowed for reconciliation of dispensed and administered medication, and 3) ensure that medication was administered in accordance with physician ordered parameters. This was evident for 8 of 8 medication carts observed during the medication storage task, 2 (Complaint #2646715, #2613978 ) of 5 complaints reviewed, and 1 (Resident #71) of 2 residents reviewed for pharmacy services during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was revealed that the facility failed to ensure the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNFABN) form was completed entirely. This was evident for 1 (Resident #26) out of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary notification.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that facility staff failed to establish infection control interventions to prevent the transmission of infection to residents. This deficient practice was evident for 3 (Resident #55, #3, and #95) of 5 residents reviewed for the infection control task during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on administrative record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation and maintain documents regarding allegations of resident abuse. This was found to be evident for 4 (Resident #424, Resident #101, Resident #120, and Resident # 99) of 25 residents reviewed for abuse during the facility's survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews with the resident and facility staff and record reviews, it was determined the facility failed to follow professional standards of nursing practice when administering medications to residents. This was found to be evident for 5 (Resident #60, #15, #502, and #509, #102) of 76 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to treat each resident with dignity by not ensuring that residents' foley drainage bags were covered. This was evident for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #504) of 5 residents reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a current copy of a resident's advance directive was in the resident's medical record. This was evident for 1 (Resident #512) of 5 residents reviewed for advanced directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to notify the state agency of an alleged case of abuse within the 2-hour allotted timeframe and failed to report allegations of abuse to the state health department and to law enforcement. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident # 83 and Resident #101) of 15 residents reviewed for abuse during the facility's survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide to the resident a copy of the completed bed hold policy prior to transfer. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for transfer and discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with the resident, review of medical records, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a baseline care plan summary to residents. This was evident for 1 (#85) of 5 residents reviewed for baseline care plan summaries during the survey. The Findings Include: On 6/13/24 at 11:30AM, in an interview with Resident #85, they stated they have not been invited to a care plan meeting nor received a baseline care plan summary or baseline care plan. On 6/14/24 at 1:15 PM, review of the medical record did not reveal any evidence that Resident #85 was given a baseline care plan summary or a copy of a baseline care plan. On 6/21/24 at 10:37 AM, in an interview with the Director of Social Services (DSS) #2 she stated she did not have a baseline care plan for Resident #85. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were developed and implemented. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #112 and Resident #85) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans during the facility's survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to provide ADL's (activities of daily living) such as showers according to the resident's preference. This was determined to be true for 1 (Resident # 44) out of 6 residents reviewed for ADL care during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of medical records, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to follow physician orders as evidenced by: 1) ensuring ordered ACE wraps were in place, 2) administering medication as ordered by the physician, and 3) a resident not receiving the ordered amount of oxygen. This was evident for 3 (Residents #40, #15, #37) of 9 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observations, review of the medical record, and interview with facility staff, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide residents with respiratory care consistent with professional standards by failing to ensure there was a physician order for oxygen administration/indication, failing to administer oxygen as prescribed, and failing to develop plans of care to address the resident's respiratory needs. This was evident for 1 (#85) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care during the investigation phase of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to properly monitor medications. This was evident in 1 out of 4 medication storage rooms and carts during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and medical record reviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to schedule a dental appointment and arrange transportation to and from the dental appointment. This deficient practice was evident for 1 (#37) of 1 resident record reviewed for dental care during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to provide documentation whether a resident had signs and symptoms of abuse immediately following an allegation of abuse and failed to provide documentation to verify monthly pharmacy review was completed in 2024. This was evident for 3 (#508, #11, #21) of 15 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility investigation, resident medical records, and other pertinent documentation, interviews, and observations it was determined that the facility failed to provide immediate action, ongoing supervision, and/or a plan of care interventions to address a resident who was known to have exit seeking/elopement behaviors. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for elopement during the complaint survey. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #1. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following this incident. The facility's plan and action were verified during this survey, therefore this deficiency will be cited as past noncompliance. The date of correction was 1/8/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was revealed the facility failed to administer medications as ordered by the physician. This was evident for 1 of 1 (Resident #1) reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of administrative records and staff interview, it was determined that the nursing administrative staff failed to conduct a yearly performance review on 2 of 6 geriatric nursing assistants for the prior 12 months.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of medication pass and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to obtain a medication error rate less than 5% (Resident #286). This includes 1 out of 3 residents observed for medication pass, 2 errors out of 25 opportunities with a medication error rate of 8%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure medications were thoroughly labeled with residents' name and dated when the medication were open. This was evident for 2 of 4 medication carts observed during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents had a means of directly contacting staff. This was evident for 3 pull chords in 2 resident spa rooms.
26 fire safety citations on file: 6 on December 11, 2025, 17 on June 28, 2024, 3 on September 3, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 11, 2024 | Fine | $8,021 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.66 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.62 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.28 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.23 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.81 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 62.2% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 53.8% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.91 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.82 on weekdays and 4.28 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 43.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.82 in April to June 2025 to 4.66 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.66 | 0.62 | 4.82 | 4.28 | 43.3% | 0 of 90 | 82 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.75 | 0.61 | 4.95 | 4.23 | 34.2% | 0 of 92 | 76 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.53 | 0.63 | 4.69 | 4.10 | 31.2% | 0 of 92 | 81 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.82 | 0.61 | 5.02 | 4.30 | 27.6% | 0 of 91 | 74 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Maryland, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.73 | 0.74 | 3.88 | 3.34 | 8.0% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.79 | $18.46 to $22.00 | 27,720 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $35.89 | $31.40 to $38.30 | 9,560 |
| Registered nurses | $47.98 | $40.26 to $51.61 | 52,910 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Maryland | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.9 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 36.4 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.4 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.8 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Advanced Rehab at Autumn Lake Healthcare's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (65.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
65.8% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Maryland: 90 better, 29 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 640 eligible stays.
12.9% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Maryland: 0 better, 41 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 636 eligible stays.
8.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Maryland: 5 better, 6 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 338 eligible stays.
85.2% this home
Median of homes: Maryland61.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 203 residents counted.
0.6% this home
Median of homes: Maryland0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 355 residents counted.
2.8% this home
Median of homes: Maryland2.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 354 residents counted.
95.5% this home
Median of homes: Maryland98.1% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 245 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: 515 BRIGHTFIELD ROAD OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Autumn Lake Healthcare, a group of 59 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 515 Brightfield Road Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2023 |
| As Family Sd Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 58% | 06/01/2023 |
| 515 Brightfield Road Propco LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| McChensey, Cathy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Raghunath, Arun | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Stern, Rochel | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 03/26/2025 | |
| 515 Brightfield Road Propco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2023 | |
| As Family Sd Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2023 | |
| M Meisels Family Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| McChensey, Cathy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Raghunath, Arun | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2023 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Maryland. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.