Home / Maryland / Silver Spring
901 Arcola Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20902 · Montgomery County · (301) 649-2400
151 certified beds, about 143 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215014 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 19, 2025, inspectors cited 18 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 57 health citations since August 2019, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.39 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
32.2% 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 57 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure potentially hazardous food items were cooled according to acceptable standards. These findings have the potential to affect all residents of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure separation between the clean and soiled area of the laundry room was maintained to prevent cross contamination. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) provide information to residents to formulate advanced directives, 2) identify a responsible party for an incapacitated resident, 3) document Advance Directive discussions in the medical record, and 4) ensure procedures for medical orders for life-sustaining treatment (MOLST). This was evident for 3 (Resident #67, Resident #6, #8) out of 4 residents reviewed for Advance Directives during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for developing pressure injuries received appropriate services for treatment and prevention. This was evident for 5 (Resident #23, #25, #15, #8, and #2) of 7 residents reviewed for pressure injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide quarterly financial statements to residents, as required. This deficiency was identified for 4 (# 114, # 133, #2, #138) out of 5 residents reviewed for personal funds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record reviews and resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Grievance policy and process were properly implemented. This was evident for 3 out of 3 units reviewed during the annual survey. On 12/9/25 at 12:50 PM, in an interview, a Potomac Unit resident (Resident #32) conveyed that s/he had reported a recent incident to the unit manager (Staff #17) and that nothing came of the concern. Upon intentional observation of the Potomac Unit, the surveyor did not observe the Grievance Officer's name and contact information, accessible grievance forms or anonymous grievance boxes. On 12/16/25 at 10:58 AM the Administrator in Training (AIT) reported that any staff member who received a grievance was expected to report it to the unit manager or charge nurse. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary psychotropic medication use and failed to ensure as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days. This was evident for 3 (Resident #144, #15, and #5 ) of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of misappropriation of resident property to the appropriate state agency. This deficiency affected one of one resident reviewed for abuse (Resident #65).
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment within the mandated timeframe. This was evident for 1 (Resident #8) of 3 residents reviewed for resident assessmentsThe
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure accuracy and timeliness of resident's comprehensive care plan. This was evident for 2 (Residents #2, #23) of 4 residents reviewed for care planning during this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a dependent resident's personal hygiene needs were adequately met by offering and providing showers as scheduled. This was evident for 1 (Resident #4) of 5 residents reviewed for activities of daily living during the survey process. On 12/9/25 at 12:02 PM, in an interview, Resident #4 stated that s/he does not get showers as often as s/he would like. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) revealed a score of 14 indicating adequate cognitive ability. On 12/16/25 at 9:23 AM, a review of Treatment Administration Record (TAR) in the electronic health record: Point, Click, Care (PCC) revealed Resident #4 received only six showers in November. A review of the shower assignment book revealed Resident #4's shower days as Wednesday and Saturday. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide activities to residents based on their comprehensive assessment to support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. This was evident for 1 (Resident #9) of 3 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide pain management in accordance with the resident's physician orders and professional standards of practice. This was evidence for 1 (R #2) of 4 residents reviewed for pain management during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) implement the physician's order 2) ensure that each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary medications, and 3) ensure appropriate medication regimen review, monitoring, and follow-up in accordance with physician orders and professional standards of practice. This was evident for 3 (Resident #3, Resident #2 and Resident #5) of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications and medical equipment available for resident use were within their expiration dates. This was evident in 3 out of 3 medication storage areas reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observation and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide legible, timely and accurate facility documents as required per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) entrance conference worksheet. This was evident at the entrance conference for this survey period. On 12/8/25 at 9:20 AM the surveyor and Acting Director of Nursing DON) commenced the entrance conference. Surveyor provided and reviewed a copy of the CMS entrance conference worksheet and other applicable documents to the DON. The required documentation and timeline for compliance was reviewed. Documents that were due upon entrance and actual date and time received were: On 12/8/25 at 12:23 PM- Census On 12/9/25 at 9:45 AM- Complete matrix for new admissions Documents that were due within 4 hours of entrance and actual date and time received were: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that education was provided to the resident's representative regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the influenza and pneumococcal immunizations. This was evident in 1 (Resident #71) of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that education was provided to the resident's representative regarding the benefits and potential side effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. This was evident in 1 (Resident #71) of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and medical record review it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) revise a Resident's care plan and 2) provide an invitation and/or invite a resident for a care plan meeting . This was evident in 4 Residents (#65, #36 #143, & #57) and 2 Residents (#63 and #38) out of 10 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure sanitary and safe food handling practices were followed to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a process was in place to address preventative maintenance of hallway handrails, residents' closets, sofas and wheelchairs. This was evident during multiple tours on the Gateway Unit during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an accurate mailing address, email address, and telephone number for the State regulatory agency. This was found in 2 of 2 postings located in the facility corridors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, survey results book review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have survey results available for the most recent surveys and reports of the facility readily available for review.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to obtain advance directives for residents. This was found evident for 3 (Resident #26, #38, and #122) of 8 Residents reviewed for advanced directives during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide privacy for resident's protected health information. This was evident for 1 (Resident #239) of 67 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and medical record review it was determined the facility failed to provide notification to the Ombudsman of the Resident that transferred to the hospital. This was evident in 1 Resident #123 out of 4 Residents reviewed for hospitalization notification.
Inspectors wroteBased medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 1 (Resident #65) of 67 residents selected for review during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop and initiate comprehensive person-centered care plans for residents. This was evident for 3 (Resident #65, #36 and #80) of 10 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plannig.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to turn and reposition residents at risk for pressure ulcers. This was evident for 2 (Resident #26 and #158) of 4 residents reviewed for positioning during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to promptly make appointments for the proper diagnosis and treatment of vision impairment conditions. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #38) out of 2 residents reviewed for vision services during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents are not exposed to hazards. This was evident for 1 (Resident #26) of 67 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to track the pharmacy's irregularity monthly recommendation, assure the review by the medical staff and have timely action by the medical staff in response to the recommendation. This was found evident of 1 (#26) of 5 residents reviewed for medication regimen review during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to promptly provide or obtain visit/appointments for routine dental care or treatment for Medicaid Residents. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #33) out of 3 residents reviewed for dental services during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices by keeping complete and accurate documentation. This was found evident in 5 (Resident #154, #143 #121 #26 and #158) of 67 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate infection prevention and control practices to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. This was found to be evident on 5 random observation during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of a facility reported investigation, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to prevent abuse of a resident. This was evident for 1 (#155) out of 67 residents in the resident sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on an investigation into a facility reported incident, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure an incident of alleged abuse was reported immediately to the Administrator and to the state agency. This was evident for 1 (#155) out of 67 residents that were part of the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of clinical records, facility policies and procedures, and resident and staff interview(s), it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure that residents who lacked decision making capacity had an identified decision maker that could act on the resident's behalf for the resident's best interest. In addition, the facility failed to notify the hospital of the determination that a resident being transferred for evaluation lacked decision making capacity. This finding was the result of investigation of complaint #MD00142746, which was evident for 1 (#49) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the survey. On 08-22-19 at 7:00 PM, an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for resident rights/exercise of rights was determined. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, facility policies and procedures, hospital and ambulance company records, interviews with facility, hospital and ambulance company staff, it was determined that the facility failed to allow a resident to return to the facility after being transferred to the emergency room for evaluation. This was evident for 1 of 2 (#49) records reviewed for hospitalization during the survey, and was related to complaint #MD00142746. These failures resulted in an immediate jeopardy (IJ) being identified on 8-22-19 at 7:00 PM related to the facility's refusal to readmit a resident to the facility following evaluation at a community hospital (Resident #49). On 8-23-19 at 12:38 AM, the facility staff submitted an IJ removal plan which was accepted. The IJ was removed on 8-27-19 at 3:30 PM after confirmation that the accepted plan had been fully executed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical records review, resident representative interview and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to notify a resident's responsible party when the resident had a change in status. This finding was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the survey (#49).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a comfortable temperature between 71 to 81°F. This was evident for 1 of 3 nursing units (Rosemary/Chesapeake) observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews with residents, resident representatives and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that interdisciplinary care plan conferences were conducted timely after each MDS assessment and failed to update resident care plans accurately. This finding was evident for 11 of 33 (#19, 40, 99, 3, 47, 71, 41, 65, 69, 97 and 135) residents selected for review during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical records review, resident representative interview and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to to provide effective discharge planning for resident #49. This finding was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for discharge during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide appropriate assistance in establishing a clearly defined authorized decision maker for a resident deemed to be incapacitated. (#49) This finding was evident in the investigation of complaint #MD00142746 which was valid.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of clinical records, and staff interview, it was determined that facility administrative staff failed to recognize the rights of an incapacitated resident, failed to permit the resident to return to the facility after an emergency room visit, and failed to involve the authorized decision maker in the discharge planning process. (#49) This finding was evident during the investigation of complaint MD00142746 which was valid.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and staff interviews, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide evidence that the Quality Assurance Committee had made good faith attempts to address deficient practice identified by the committee as it related to social services. On 08-22-19 at 5:30 PM, interview with the director of nursing revealed that it was social services responsibility to ensure that the correct information was in the clinical record on who had guardianship, or who was the authorized decision maker. The director of nursing also added, nursing is not responsible for that, social services is. We would not have known the information on the face sheet was incorrect. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on facility administrative and clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to protect resident #403's right to personal privacy. This finding was evident for 1 of 18 residents reviewed during the revisit survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, surveyor observation, and interviews with staff and local law enforcement authorities, it was determined that the facility staff failed to recognize a resident's right to be free from neglect. This finding was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect care area (#403).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews with facility staff and review of a facility investigation involving an alleged employee to resident case of abuse, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an alleged employee to resident abuse incident. This finding was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility staff interview, and hospital social staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe and effective transition of care during a facility-initiated transfer. In addition, the facility failed to ensure that a facility-initiated discharge was necessary to meet the needs of resident #49. This was evident for 1 of 2 (#49) records reviewed for hospitalization during the survey and is related to MD00142746.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, resident representative interview and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to notify a resident's representative before transferring a resident out of the facility. In addition, the facility failed to provide a notice of discharge 30 days prior to the discharge. This finding was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the survey. (#49)
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow a physician's order to hold a medication based on established parameters. This finding was evident in 1 of 3 records selected for review of the discharge care area during the revisit survey. (#71)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to document the rationale or duration of an as needed (PRN) psychotropic medication in a resident's medical record. This finding was evident for 1 of 9 (#80) residents selected for review of unnecessary medications during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, review of employee files and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that there was a qualified social worker on a full time basis for a facility with more than 120 beds.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance minutes, social services consultant audits and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an appropriate plan of action to correct identified quality deficiencies in relationship to care plan conferences and social services.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately complete resident assessments. This was evident for 2 of 33 (#78, 80) residents selected for review during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate, complete, and readily accessible resident medical records. This finding was evident for 4 of 33 residents (#23, 47, 66 and 71) selected for review during the survey.
25 fire safety citations on file: 5 on December 19, 2025, 15 on July 2, 2024, 5 on August 28, 2019.
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) | 3.39 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.12 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.94 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.86 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 32.2% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 29.4% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.74 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 3.50 on weekdays and 3.12 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.48 in April to June 2025 to 3.39 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 | 3.39 | 0.59 | 3.50 | 3.12 | 2.2% | 0 of 90 | 143 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.43 | 0.59 | 3.54 | 3.15 | 1.3% | 0 of 92 | 142 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.42 | 0.57 | 3.54 | 3.11 | 2.0% | 0 of 92 | 143 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.48 | 0.58 | 3.59 | 3.21 | 1.6% | 0 of 91 | 140 |
| 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 | 26.8 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.1 | 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 | 1.0 | 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 | 14.3 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 25.7 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.2 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Arcola's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (7.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
7.8% 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. 165 eligible stays.
12.4% 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. 161 eligible stays.
7.8% 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. 70 eligible stays.
79.0% 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. 62 residents counted.
1.2% 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. 83 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 83 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 27 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: 901 ARCOLA AVENUE 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 901 Arcola Avenue Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2022 |
| A&r Stern Family Md7 LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2022 |
| Schwartz, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2022 | |
| Gbenle, Ademola | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/10/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2022 | |
| Sharma, Sandeep | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2022 | |
| Stern, Aryeh | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 06/24/2025 | |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Gbenle, Ademola | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sharma, Sandeep | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2022 |
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.