105 Times Square, Salisbury, MD 21801 · Wicomico County · (410) 749-2474
126 certified beds, about 108 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2002
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215339 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 10, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 96 health citations since May 2019 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,033 in the last three years; the largest was $10,033, and the latest is dated May 23, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.33 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.60 of those hours.
32.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
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 96 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, reviews of all pertinent administrative documents and a closed record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify Resident #1's physician and representative immediately after a significant change in condition occurred. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 8 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, reviews of all pertinent documents and a closed medical record, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide updated non-pressure wound assessments, failed to identify a new wound on the left great toe. This delayed the treatment for an infected wound. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 2 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and observation, interviews showed the facility failed to make sure handrails were firmly secured and affixed to the wall on the facility's. This was was true for 2 of 4 floors of the facility. Findings Include: Review of facility policy, titled, Policy for Facilities Maintenance Program dated 8/12/2025 documented, the purpose of this policy is to ensure a well-structured preventative maintenance program for a nursing home facility is crucial for ensuring safety, functionality, and a pleasant living environment for residents. Record review of the facility work order created on 1/18/2026, showed Administrator-1 documented handrails on the second floor needed attention and concluded the priority was high. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, physician interviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to order continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for 1(R4) of 3 sampled residents readmitted from the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and Resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to complete documentation for the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medical record accuracy. (R# 5)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary and comfortable environment, as evidenced by persistent odors of urine throughout multiple resident care floors and common areas. This deficient practice was observed on three separate dates during the annual survey and had the potential to impact all residents, staff, and visitors in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1.) use appropriate infection control practices according to professional standards of practice, 2.) ensure hand sanitizer supply was available at all dispensers, 3.) implement infection control practices to ensure oxygen equipment was dated when put into use, 4.) ensure linens were handled in a safe and sanitary manner. This deficient practice was evident for: 1.) 5 resident rooms observed during breakfast tray collection and 4 residents (Resident #77, #4, #113, and #35) observed during medication administration and 2.) 3 out of 8 hand sanitizer dispensers located on the second floor during the facility's recertification survey, 3.) 1 (Resident #7) of 2 residents reviewed for oxygen equipment and 4) 1 observation of the laundry processing room during the annual survey. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the residents with respect and dignity by failing to knock/ask permission to enter prior to entering the resident's room. This was evident for 5 resident rooms observed during breakfast tray collection on the first floor.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary bathing environment. This deficient practice was evident for 1 of 1 shared shower rooms reviewed during the annual survey. Based on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment. This was evident for 1.) 1 out of 1 Resident reviewed for respiratory (Resident #3) and 2 out of 2 second floor Residents reviewed for environment (Resident #43 and #32) 2.) 1 out of 1 ceiling adjacent to the second floor nursing station and 3.) 1 out of 1 shared shower rooms during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from verbal abuse when a staff member verbally threatened a resident. This was evident for 1 (MD#2664395) of 1 facility reported incident reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1.) Maintain and provide documentation of required Ombudsman notifications related to resident transfers and discharges and provide the resident and/or resident representative with written notification of transfer to the hospital and written notification of the facility's bed hold policy. This is evident for 4 (Residents #2, #11, #110, and #112) of 7 residents reviewed for transfers and discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the resident and/or resident representative with a written summary of their baseline care plan. This was evident for 2 residents (Resident #110 and #112) out of 41 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure comprehensive person-centered care plans were developed and implemented for residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #111 and Resident #112) out 41 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to 1.) Have a system in place to ensure the resident and/or resident representative had the opportunity to participate in their care planning process with members of the interdisciplinary team at care plan meetings. 2.) Hold and complete quarterly care plan meetings for residents an 3.) Perform appropriate revisions to resident's care plans. This was evident for 4 (Resident #112, #110, #6 and #89) out of 41 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a resident environment that is free of accident hazards. This was evident for 2 out of 4 housekeeping carts observed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to follow medical orders for respiratory care consistent with professional standards of care. This was evident for 1 (#3) out of 2 Residents reviewed for respiratory during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing level to meet the needs of residents on the facility's second floor. This was evident for 1 (floor #2) out of 3 floors of the facility during the surveyor's initial tour.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined facility staff failed to ensure documentation of attempts made to offer advanced directives. This was evident for 1 (#43) out of 5 Residents reviewed for advanced directives during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of a complaint, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the Physician and the Resident representative of a change in condition and an incident that potentially required a Physician intervention. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 33 residents reviewed during the complaint survey. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following the change in condition and this incident prior to the start of this survey. The facility's plan and action were verified during this survey; therefore, this deficiency was found to be Past Noncompliance with a compliance date of 2/12/25The
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of a complaint, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to address an abnormal laboratory result and monitor a resident for signs of aspiration following an incident that potentially required a Physician intervention. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 33 residents reviewed during the complaint survey. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following this incident prior to the start of this survey. The facility's plan and action were verified during this survey; therefore, this deficiency was found to be Past Noncompliance with a compliance date of 2/12/25.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This was found to be evident throughout the facility and for seven (Resident #17, #21, #82, #10, #2, #15 and #19) out of 43 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that the required information is provided to residents or their representatives in writing when a resident is discharged to the hospital. This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #24, #7, #61, and #43) out of 43 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the residents status. This was found to be evident for 4 (Resident #24, #56, #17 and #61) out of 43 residents whose medical records were reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive person centered care plans were developed. This was found to be evident for 4 (Resident #59, #17, #82 and #43) out of 43 residents whose medical records were reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities based on the comprehensive assessment, care plan, and the preferences of the residents. This was evident for 4 (Resident #82, #75, #23, and #2) of 7 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate documentation in the residents' medical records as evidenced by the facility's failure to ensure that staff documented behaviors to indicate the continued need for an antipsychotic medication; failed to ensure that skilled nursing notes accurately reflected a resident's status; and failed to ensure the social service director documented discharge summary/planning information. This was evident for 4 (Resident #56, #29, #10, and #42) of 43 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to protect a resident's private space by not knocking prior to entering a resident's room. This was evident for 1 (Resident #17) out of 5 residents reviewed for dignity during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to document and address concerns raised by the resident council, as evidenced by the lack of documentation of those concerns and how they were addressed. This was evident in resident council meetings held between February 2023 and December 2023.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide information to residents regarding their right to formulate an advanced directive, failed to document that the resident or resident representative was informed of their right to formulate an advanced directive by failing to document discussions regarding advanced directives and the outcome of the discussion in the resident's medical record. This was evident for 2 (Resident #292, and #43) of 17 residents reviewed for advanced directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide information on the facility's grievance procedures and how to file complaints or grievances available to residents. This was evident during a resident council meeting conducted during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to orient, prepare, and document a resident's preparation for a transfer to the hospital. This was for 3 (Resident #7, #61 and #43) of 43 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were made aware of a facility's bed-hold and reserve bed payment policy when transferred to a hospital. This was evident for 3 (Resident #7,#61 and #43) of 43 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days following a significant decline in a resident's condition. This was evident for 1 (#88) of 3 residents reviewed for closed records.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate a resident's schedule to ensure the resident was able to participate in the interdisciplinary care plan meeting. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #76) out of 43 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene to residents who are dependent on staff and/or who are requiring assistance from staff with activities of daily living (ADL). This was evident for 2 (Resident #15 and #75) of 2 residents reviewed for ADL's.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interviews and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the administration of regularly scheduled medications; failed to ensure that recommendations made by the registered dietitian were communicated to the physician; and failed to ensure that staff followed a physician order to notify the physician when a lab value was outside of an ordered parameter. This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #56, # 29, and #17) out of 43 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to identify and establish treatment orders for a newly acquired pressure ulcer and failed to ensure that treatment orders were updated as indicated by the wound care provider. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #24) out of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that occupational therapy recommendations for a restorative nursing plan were discussed with the interdisciplanary team or incorporated into the resident's care plan. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #24) out of three residents reviewed for positioning and mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from accident hazards when smoking, by failing to follow a resident's care plan to implement adaptive equipment when the resident smoked. This was evident for 1 (Resident #7) of 8 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for a resident with suprapubic catheter by failing to ensure a follow-up urology consult was scheduled as recommended after a hospitalization. This was evident for 1 (Resident #80) of 3 residents reviewed for urinary catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility to ensure pain management was provided to a resident requiring this service. This was evident for 1 (Resident #15) of 7 residents reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure transportation for regularly scheduled dialysis treatment, failed to follow up with the dialysis center to obtain a report after a dialysis treatment, and failed to notify the primary care provider when a dialysis session was missed. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #29) out of one resident reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records review, it was determined that the facility failed to assess residents for safety or obtain informed consent prior to the installation of bed rails, and failed to obtain orders or establish a care plan to address the use of side rails. This was evident for 3 (Resident #56, #82, and #15) of 8 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medication. This was found to be evident for two (Resident #24 and #191) out of seven resident's whose medication regimens were reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a prn (as needed) order for an antipsychotic medication was limited to 14 days. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #24) out of five residents selected for unnecessary medication review.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that 1) expired medications were disposed of promptly and 2) medications were stored correctly per the manufacturer's specifications. This was evident for 3 of 4 medication carts observed and 1 of 2 medication rooms observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food and drink was provided to the resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #292) of 3 residents reviewed for food.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring pureed diets received adequately pureed foods. This was found to be evident for two out of two residents (Resident #34 and #19) observed to have incorrect diet consistency served during a random observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that refuse was properly disposed. This was found to be evident on 2 out of 2 observations of the dumpster area.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and other pertinent information and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified deficiencies. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) ensure that staff kept the door between the clean and dirty areas of the laundry closed to prevent cross contamination; 2) to have measures in place to monitor for and prevent the growth of legionella and other opportunistic water-borne pathogens in its water systems; 3) to maintain a residents catheter bag in proper a sanitary condition; and 4) to ensure that PPD skin test are read within the 48-72-hour timeframe. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident # 80) out of 3 residents reviewed for urinary catheter use and 1 (Resident #191) of 6 residents reviewed for tuberculosis skin testing.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and pertinent document review, it was determined that the facility failed to have a monitoring process in place to ensure that the resident call system remained functioning. This was evident for 4 out of 12 rooms, during a random observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to have quarterly care plan meetings for residents (Resident #1, #7 and #21). This was evident for 3 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide urinary catheter care to Resident #28 as ordered. This is evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed during the complaint survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined the facility staff failed to include a resident's Power of Attorney (POA) in the care of a resident (Resident #21) This was evident for 1 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide maintenance and housekeeping services to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for residents (Residents #7, #21 and #27). This was evident for 3 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation review and interview it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of abuse within 2 hours of the allegation to the regulatory agency, the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) for residents (Resident #8, #11 and #13). This was evident for 3 of 7 residents reviewed for facility reported incidents during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded (Resident #18). This was evident for 1 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident had baseline care plans created and initiated for a resident. This was evident for 1 (#12) out of 29 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of a complaint, medical record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an effective discharge planning process for residents (Resident #3 and #9). This was evident for 2 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, the facility staff failed to perform activities of daily living for a dependent resident (Resident #1). This was evident for 1 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to provide treatment/services to prevent/heal pressures ulcers (Resident #10 and #12). This is evident for 2 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined physician progress notes were not in a resident's medical record the day the resident was seen (Resident #22). This was evident for 1 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide dental care for a resident (Resident #14). This was evident for 1 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards (Resident #2 and #7) This was evident for 2 of 29 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility to ensure comprehensive care plans were developed for residents as evidenced by failure to address: 1) respiratory issues including sleep apnea and the use of oxygen; 2) the use of psychotropic medications; 3) individual's activity preferences 4.) psychotropic and hypnotic medications 5.) hospitalizations and infections; and 6.) failed to develop a care plan related to a resident's respiratory needs. This was found to be evident for 6 out of 27 residents (#90, #81, #30, #211, #88, #57) reviewed during the investigation stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview of residents, family and of facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) have an interdisciplinary team (IDT) meeting consisting of the resident and or resident representative upon admission to the facility and with subsequent admission (Resident #96). During this meeting a care plan is developed or revised; 2) failed to update the resident care plan for a resident (Resident # 81) observed sitting in the bedroom with a large wet area underneath the wheelchair and 3) failed to update a care plan for a resident (Resident #47) receiving treatment for a pressure ulcer; 4.) failed to conduct quarterly care plan meetings with the resident or the responsible party to address the resident's current needs (Resident #110) This was evident for 4 of 27 residents reviewed during the investigative stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of staffing documentation, complaint MD00133305 and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff to provide services to maintain the highest practical physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all the resident's in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to keep speech language pathology instructions for the resident in a private setting and failed to promote dignity for the resident by giving instructions and feeding the resident at the nursing station which is also located in front of the elevator. This was true for 1 out 7 residents (Resident #52) reviewed for dignity during the investigation stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with family and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to 1. have a system in place to document a change in condition timely and further notify a resident's representative timely of a change in condition for Resident #212 evident during the review of a fall; 2. notify the physician that scheduled medication was unavailable to administer to a resident (Resident #27). This was found to be evident for 2 of 27 residents reviewed during the facility's annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the physical environment of the facility in good repair as evidenced by multiple cracked and damaged floor tiles in hallways and resident rooms; damage to walls and doors; loose fitting plumbing fixtures; and resident sinks with a tanish colored build-up on the ledges.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical records review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to keep track of a resident's purchases. This was true for 1 out of 3 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for personal property.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview with family, staff and the ombudsman determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure that the resident and/or resident's representative and the ombudsman were notified in writing of the resident's transfer to the hospital and the rationale for the transfer. This was found to be evident for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #54, #96, #211) reviewed for hospitalization during the investigative portion of the survey and related complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of recent facility discharge practices and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents and or their representative (RP) with the proper paper documentation of the facilities bed-hold policy. This was evident for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #54, #96, #211) reviewed for hospitalization during the investigative portion of the survey and related complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed at least once every three months. This was found to be evident for the 2 out of 2 residents (Resident #1 and #3) reviewed as part of the Resident Assessment task during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure Minimum Data Set assessments were transmitted within the required timeframes. This was found to be evident for the 3 out of 3 residents (Resident #1, #3 and #88) reviewed as part of the Resident Assessment task during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with the facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the resident's status as evidenced by failure to accurately code the resident vision in section B. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 7 residents (Resident # 28) reviewed during the investigative stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to provide a summary of the interim plan of care to the resident or responsible party. This was found to be evident for 2 out of 3 residents (Resident #312 and #57) reviewed for care planning in the investigative stage of the survey process. The Findings Include: A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care. 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have an updated physician discharge summary and a completed discharge summary on a resident to include a recapitulation of the resident's stay. This was evident in 1 of 3 residents (Resident #311) reviewed for discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical records review and interview with resident and facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to consistently ensure the resident's personal hygiene needs were adequately met when the resident received limited showers. This was evident for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #18) reviewed for activities of daily living in the investigation stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview with staff and family members and review of medical record, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide activates of daily living specific to grooming on a daily basis to the resident. This was evident of 1 out of 27 residents (Resident #91) reviewed in the investigational process of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to provide activities for an individual based on their assessment. This was evident in the review 2 of 4 residents (Resident #30 and #211) reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure daily weights were obtained as ordered by the physician. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 6 residents (Resident #81) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that therapy recommendations for splinting devices and restorative nursing services were addressed and implemented if needed. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 5 residents (Resident #62) reviewed for positioning and mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure assessments were completed when residents returned from dialysis treatment and failed to ensure an effective system of communication with the dialysis center. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 1 resident (Resident #31) reviewed for dialysis during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility staff failed to document an accurate overview of the resident during a physician visit. This was evident during 1 of 1 physician records reviewed for Resident #22.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA), demonstrated competency in skills and techniques to care for residents. This was found to be for 2 out of 2 GNA's (Staff #24 and #25) hired in the past year and selected for review of competencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pertinent documentation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to retain the posted daily staffing information. This was found to be evident for the entire facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to put interventions in place regarding a resident's diagnosis (Resident #22).
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate indications for the usage of an anxiety medication. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #88) reviewed for unnecessary medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that nursing staff failed to sign off the administration of a narcotic on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and the Controlled Substances Record consistently. This was evident during the review of 1 of 5 residents (Resident #88) for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical records review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to arrange a dental appointment for the resident in a timely manner this was true for 1 out of 1 resident (Resident #312) reviewed for dental in the investigative stage of the survey. The Findings Include: During an interview with Resident #312 on 4/24/19 the resident verbalized his/her main concern was tooth pain. The resident reported that his/her tooth was very painful. The resident further reported that staff was aware of the tooth pain. On 4/26/19 Resident #312's medical records were reviewed and revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility 3/30/19 for respite care (temporary institutional care of a sick, elderly, or disabled person, providing relief for their usual caregiver) and with diagnosis which included seizure disorder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to employee staff with active professional licenses relevant to their hired job descriptions. This was evident during the review of 2 of 2 employee files, (Staff #24 and #25)
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure reports from outside providers were available in the medical record for review by other health care providers; 2.) failed to ensure certifications of medical ineffectiveness and or end stage/terminal condition were completed and on the chart for a resident whose surrogate decision maker made the decision for the resident to have a No CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) order; 3.) failed to ensure physician notes were maintained on the medical record for other health care providers to review;. 4.) failed to have the correct Maryland Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST), active on a resident's chart.; 5.) failed to have completed labs on the chart. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Quality Assurance (QA) sign in sheets and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the QA committee met at least quarterly. This was found to be evident for the first quarter of 2018 and has the potential to affect all the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to adhere to infection control practices and procedures by ensuring that a resident room was kept clean and dry and free of drainage. This was evident for 1 (Resident #81) reviewed during the facility's annual survey.
34 fire safety citations on file: 8 on December 10, 2025, 16 on March 29, 2024, 10 on May 1, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2024 | Fine | $10,033 |
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) | 3.33 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.60 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.99 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.26 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.46 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 32.1% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.07 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 3.46 on weekdays and 2.99 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.95 in April to June 2025 to 3.33 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 | 3.33 | 0.60 | 3.46 | 2.99 | 2.7% | 0 of 90 | 108 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.24 | 0.63 | 3.39 | 2.86 | 3.8% | 0 of 92 | 103 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.33 | 0.77 | 3.49 | 2.91 | 7.8% | 0 of 92 | 100 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.95 | 0.52 | 3.11 | 2.57 | 1.4% | 0 of 91 | 108 |
| 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 | 13.0 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.8 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.2 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.7 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Anchorage Rehabilitation and Wellness Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (39.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
39.4% this home
Worse 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. 125 eligible stays.
10.1% this home
No different from 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. 152 eligible stays.
7.0% 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. 63 eligible stays.
65.1% 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. 43 residents counted.
1.5% 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. 66 residents counted.
4.1% 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. 66 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 12 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: Legal Business Name Not Available.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership data not available |
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.