2095 Rockrose Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21211 · Baltimore City County · (410) 889-9700
105 certified beds, about 99 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215215 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 1, 2025, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 55 health citations since September 2018, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.18 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.11 of those hours.
69.7% 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 55 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility records, interviews with staff, and interviews with residents, it was determined that the facility failed to follow its established grievance process. This failure was identified in 3 of the 22 cases reviewed (Residents #2, #51, and #91) during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of complaints, observations, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sufficient staffing levels to meet the needs of its residents. This was evident in statements from 6 out of 10 interviewable residents (Resident #23, #29, #45, #54, #55, and #60 ), 1 of 11 complaints, and statements from nursing staff (2 out of 3) during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper labeling of food and that food items were not expired, as evidenced by multiple food items unlabeled and expired in the refrigerator, freezer, and pantry. This was evident during the initial tour of the kitchen during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe environment. This was evident for 1 of 2 soiled utility rooms observed during a tour of the environment during the recertification/complaint survey. Findings Included: On 05/01/25 at 10:13 AM, during a tour of the facility during the system triggered environment task, it was observed that the soiled utility room on the first floor was unlocked, this soiled utility room contained used biohazard bags, used needle/sharps containers, used oxygen equipment and trash. On 05/01/25 at 10:47 AM, during the facility tour with the Maintenance Director (Staff #26), he was notified that the soiled utility room on the 1st floor was unlocked and was a safety concern. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide adequate responses to grievances presented by the residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #55, #64) of the 3 residents whose grievance records were reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to keep residents free from accidents and hazards, as evidenced by; 1) the failure to lock a Geri chair while a resident was using it. This was evident in 1 (Resident #75) of the 3 residents reviewed for fall risk during the recertification/complaint survey. Also, the facility failed to 2) ensure the resident's environment was free from accident hazards by failing to keep a resident's fall mat clear of other objects. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 43) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to initiate the use of nonpharmacological methods for pain management tool on the Resident's Medication and Treatment Administration Record (MAR and TAR). This was evident in the review of 1 of 1 (Resident #49) reviewed for unnecessary medications during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) received the required training to become a Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) within the 4-month timeframe, and that all nursing staff maintained active licenses. This was evident in 1 (Staff #20) of the 3 CNA/GNA employee records reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of records, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure narcotics removed from the resident's supply were administered to the resident, as evidenced by staff documenting the removal of narcotics without documentation of the need for the narcotic or documentation that the narcotic was administered to the resident. This was evident for 2 (#38 and #69) of 2 residents reviewed for controlled drug administration and medication administration records reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to implement behavior monitoring for residents receiving antipsychotics medications and to ensure a resident received medications as ordered. This was evident for 3 (#34, #44 and #49) out of 5 reviewed for unnecessary medications during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and a review of medical records, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who require dental services on a routine or emergent basis receive necessary and recommended dental services in a timely manner. This was evident for 2 (#55, #60) of 4 residents reviewed for dental services during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for enhanced barrier precautions while administering medications, and 2) ensure nursing staff use appropriate infection control practices during medication administration. This was evident for 2 (LPN #12 and LPN #16) out of 3 staff members observed during medication administration. It was also determined that the facility failed to 3) maintain isolation precautions as ordered. This was evident for 1 (Resident #16) of 24 residents records reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and an investigation of intake #MD00217176 it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure all nursing staff were educated on the location of the facility's Automated External Defibrillator (AED). This was evident for 3 staff (Staff #23, 24, 25) out of 11 who were interviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of pertinent facility documentation, hospital record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from significant med errors as evidenced by a resident being administered medication that was not prescribed resulting in the resident ' s hospitalization. This was evident for 1 (#16) of 3 residents reviewed for medication administration during a complaint survey. This failure resulted in actual harm to Resident #16. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following this incident and prior to the start of this survey. The facilities plan and action were verified during this survey, therefore this deficiency was found to be past noncompliance with a compliance date of 3/15/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide maintenance and housekeeping services to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for the residents. This was evident for the residents residing on the first floor of the facility during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Survey Agency immediately, but not later than two hours after an incident occurred for 4 (Residents #28, #37, #39, and #41) of 15 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wrote10. Resident #41 A Comprehensive & [and] Extended Care Facilities Self-Report Form, dated 03/09/2022, revealed Resident #41 reported that on 03/08/2022 at 10:00 PM, they were kicked in the back. It was determined Geriatric Nurse Aide (GNA) #22 fit the description given by the resident of the accused staff. The resident later changed their statement to say the incident happened on 03/05/2022, and the aide pushed his knee into the resident's back. The facility's investigative file did not contain any interviews with other residents to determine the extent of the alleged abuse by GNA #22, and no information was provided on the resident census at the time or the mental status assessments of the residents on GNA #22's hall at the time of the incident. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the residents' rights to be free from verbal abuse from staff and sexual abuse from another resident, which affected 3 (Residents #27, #28, and #39) of 15 residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, Resident #37 sexually abused Resident #39, and Resident #27 and Resident #28 were verbally abused by a staff member.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident's representative(s) in writing of the reason for transfer or discharge, along with the required notification information, in a language and manner they understand and document that notification in the medical record. This was evident for 1 (#18) of 23 residents reviewed for complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to code the resident's status accurately on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (Resident #8). This was true for 1 of 20 resident complaints reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of a complaint, a closed medical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to initiate a care plan for a resident with a history of substance abuse disorder. This was evident for 1 (Resident #24) of 20 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on compliant, reviews of a closed clinical record and administrative records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received services to promote healing of a surgical wound. This was found evident in 1 (Resident #14) out of 2 Residents reviewed for wound care during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on compliant, reviews of a closed clinical record and administrative records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received services to promote healing of a pressure ulcer. This was found evident in 1 (Resident #6) out of 2 Residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to investigate a fall, determine root cause, and implement interventions to prevent further falls for 1 (Resident #40) of 1 resident reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview with resident and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate interventions for a resident with identified history of trauma. This was evident for 1 (#19) of 23 residents reviewed for complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview It was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's medication regimen was free from an unnecessary psychotropic medication failing to ensure that a psychotropic medication prescribed as needed was limited to 14 days. This was evident for 1 (#17) of 23 residents reviewed for complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of a closed medical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff obtained a laboratory specimen on a resident without a physician's order. This was evident for 1 (Resident #14) of 20 complaints reviewed during a complaint 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 1) ensure that drug regimen reviews were done for all residents at least monthly, 2) ensure tht pharmacist recommendations were acted upon timely from identified irregularities during the monthly pharmacy review and 3) have evidence that drug regimen reviews were completed, addressed and acted on by the physician. This was evident for 4 (#32, #31, #54, #9) out of the 5 residents reviewed for medication regimen review during the annual survey but affected all residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. This was observed on 1 of 2 nursing units during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to document that information was provided to the acute care facility when a resident was transferred there emergently. This was evident for 2 (#229, #129) of 5 residents reviewed for transfer to an acute care facility.
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 identified for 2 (#229, #233) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 1 (#32) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 2 (#232, #233) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the annual survey.
Inspectors wrote5). This surveyor interviewed Resident #65 on 6/3/21 at 12:57 PM. The resident stated that he/she was not consulted with plan of care changes. A review of Resident #65's clinical record on 6/11/21 revealed that the resident had a care plan meeting on 2/3/21, but the resident was not invited. The Assistant Director of Nursing and Social worker were interviewed on 6/11/21 at 1:06 PM. She confirmed that the invitations sent to the responsible party and the resident were not in the chart. It was not evident that the resident was invited. The Administrator, Director of Nursing, and ADON were informed of the findings on 6/11/21 at 1:30 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and observation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure food was served in a palatable manner. This was evident for 2 (#30, #329) out of 3 residents reviewed for complaints about food.
Inspectors wroteBased on administrative record review, medical record review, observation and interviews with facility staff, it was determined the facility 1) failed to document in the resident medical record that pain medication was refused when offered to a resident for their complaints of pain 2) failed to provide the correct Advanced Beneficiary Notice to residents who received Medicare Part A services, 3) failed to protect resident medical information, 4) failed to accurately document when a treatment was or was not done and 5) failed to timely write a progress note. This was found to be evident for 7 ( #179, #331, #332, #333, #132, #32, #229) 60 residents reviewed and for 9 resident room numbers of 60 residents reviewed during the annual survey
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to adhere to infection control practices and guidelines to prevent the transmission and spread of germs and microorganisms in the facility. This was found to be evident during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a PASARR was completed for the residents (Resident #31). This was evident for 1 out of 2 residents reviewed for PASARR compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to develop and initiate a comprehensive, for a resident that was resident centered and specific to the resident's needs. This was evident for 1 (#32) of 5 residents reviewed for mobility and 1 (#79) of 16 residents reviewed in relation to complaints during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that activities of daily living (ADL's) were provided to residents who needed assistance (Resident #31). This was evident for 1 out of 4 residents reviewed for ADL care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide care and treatment to Resident #32 in accordance with physician's orders and then signed off that the treatment was performed. This was evident for 1 (#32) of 5 residents reviewed for mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide the necessary treatment and services to promote healing and prevent infection to an existing pressure ulcer for Resident #46. This was evident for 1 (#46) of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents with limited range of motion received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent further decline in range of motion. This was evident for 2 (#46, #233) of 5 residents reviewed for positioning and mobility during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure resident receiving antipsychotic medication had a gradual dose reduction (GDR) review conducted by licensed pharmacist. This was evident for 1(#9) out 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to provide medically ordered routine dental care to a resident (Resident #1). This was evident in 1 of 60 residents reviewed during the facility's annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to equip and maintain secure handrails on 2 of 2 nursing units observed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility employee's training files and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all employees received mandatory abuse prevention training. This was evident for 1 out 5 employee's human resource records reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide a resident and the resident's responsible party with a written notice and reason for a room change before the resident was moved to a different room. This was evident for 2 (#233, #12,) of 9 residents reviewed for abuse and 1(#330) of 4 residents reviewed for discharge during an annual recertification survey, however the deficient practice affected all residents as the facility staff were not aware of the regulation
Inspectors wroteto notify the resident/resident representative in writing of a transfer/discharge of a resident along with the reason for the transfer. This was evident for 4 (#229, #232, #233, #74) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of the bed hold policy upon transfer of a resident to an acute care facility. This was evident for 3 (#229, #232, #233) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of daily staffing records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post the total number and actual hours worked by categories of Registered Nurses (RN), Licensed Practical Nurses(LPN), and Certified Geriatric Nurse Aides (GNA) per shift. This was evident on 2 of 2 nursing units observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to store linen in an appropriate manner to prevent the spread of infection. This practice was observed on an outside location of the building during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation the facility staff failed to maintain dignity for Resident #24 while bathing the resident in the resident's bedroom. This was evident for 1 out of 30 residents investigated during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medication cart observations and staff interviews it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that the medical records were kept in a confidential manner. This was evident in 1 out of 3 medication carts.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that glucose test strips and medications used for treatments were properly labeled. This was evident in 2 of 13 storage areas inspected during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on meal service observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility staff: 1) failed to demonstrate appropriate hand hygiene practices during meal service involving residents on the 200 Nursing Unit. This was evident for one 1 out of 3 units, and 2) failed to install plumbing in a manner that ensures that food contact equipment is not contaminated in case of a sewage blockage.
31 fire safety citations on file: 14 on May 1, 2025, 10 on June 14, 2021, 7 on September 12, 2018.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.18 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.11 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.90 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.88 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.19 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 69.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.97 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 3.30 on weekdays and 2.90 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 31.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.57 in April to June 2025 to 3.18 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 | 3.18 | 0.11 | 3.30 | 2.90 | 31.7% | 0 of 90 | 99 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.26 | 0.20 | 3.34 | 3.05 | 36.5% | 0 of 92 | 95 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.39 | 0.26 | 3.46 | 3.19 | 42.8% | 0 of 92 | 90 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.57 | 0.20 | 3.70 | 3.23 | 52.7% | 0 of 91 | 92 |
| 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 | 18.1 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.3 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 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 | 25.3 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.6 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Alice Manor's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.0% this home
No different from 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. 44 eligible stays.
9.9% 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. 63 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 33 eligible stays.
62.2% 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. 37 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 53 residents counted.
2.6% 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. 53 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. 19 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: ALICE OPERATOR 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alice Parent LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 09/01/2014 |
| Alice Building II, LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 09/01/2014 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2014 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2014 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2014 | |
| Serasky Price, Sholom Leib | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/15/2021 | |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/19/2025 | |
| Alice Building II, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2014 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/25/2025 | |
| Rizqui, Ibrahim | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2021 | |
| Serasky Price, Sholom Leib | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/15/2021 | |
| Stern, Aryeh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2014 |
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.