347 Ballenger Drive, Frederick, MD 21701 · Frederick County · (301) 663-5181
130 certified beds, about 112 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 1969
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215001 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 30, 2026, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 71 health citations since November 2022, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.80 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.68 of those hours.
32.7% 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 71 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who required assistance with self-care was groomed in a manner that preserved the resident's dignity. This was evident in 1 (Resident #34) of 1 resident reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure resident room temperature was maintained based on the resident's comfort level and preference. This was evident for 1 (Resident #129) of 4 residents reviewed for environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the regulatory timeframes to maintain current, accurate assessment records. This was evident for 3 (Residents #24, #37, and #34) of 3 residents reviewed for Resident assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days for a resident who experienced a major decline in health status that impacted more than one area of the Resident's health. This was evident for 1 (Resident #3) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's representative participated in the care plan process. This was evident for one (Resident #34) of 3 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff only documented completing tasks that were actually completed. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #117) out of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observations, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who required assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) received supervision with oral intake and showers. This was evident for 2 (Resident #88, #28) of 5 residents reviewed for ADL care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure air mattresses were kept at the appropriate settings. This was found to be evident for two (Resident #117 and #1) out of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure weights were obtained as ordered and failed to ensure accurate assessment of a resident's body mass index. This was found to be evident for two (Resident #117 and #1) out of four resident reviewed for pressure ulcer care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observation, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident had physician orders and a care plan for the use and care of a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) device. This was evident for 1 (Resident #11) of 2 reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents according to professional standards of practice that included administration of pain medication according to the physician order, administer/attempt non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) prior to any as needed pain medications, routine pain medication was re-ordered in a timely manner, and to access pain medication from interim supply when needed. This was evident for 3 (Resident #6, #13, #97) of 3 residents reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were from from unnecessary medications. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #4) out of eight residents who were reviewed for medication usage.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observations, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that controlled medications were stored in a permanently affixed compartment, medication carts were locked when unattended, and medications were kept in a secure location . This was evident for 2 of 3 medication refrigerators, 1 of 4 medication carts observed while completing the medication storage task, and a random surveyor observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Residents received their meals at a palatable temperature. This was evident in 2 of 3 kitchen observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was prepared in a form suitable for individuals with altered ability to chew and swallow. This was evident in 1 of the 3 tray-line service observations conducted during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to adhere to infection control practices when handling clean laundry and failed to ensure appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were donned during care for residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and Contact Precautions. This was evident for 1 of 1 laundry room observed and for 2 (Resident #11, 130) of 6 residents reviewed during the infection control task.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint and facility reported incident review, 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 5 (#16, #4, #10, #5, #3) of 16 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to administer medications and treatments as ordered by the physician. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for complaints during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the resident or representative with an outcome and/or resolution following the conclusion of a grievance investigation for 1 (Resident 5) of 1 sampled resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to 1.) ensure misappropriation of resident property was reported immediately, not later than 24 hours, to the administrator and to other officials for one of one facility-reported incident reviewed for misappropriation of resident property and 2.) implement its abuse policy and procedure for immediately reporting an allegation of staff-to-resident verbal abuse to the State Agency, local law enforcement, and to Adult Protective Services within the required time frame. This was for 1 (Resident 6) resident sampled for misappropriation of property and 1 (Resident 5) of 6 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to take appropriate corrective action as a result of investigation findings by not educating staff on abuse after an allegation of abuse occurred for two incidents related to 1(Resident #5) of 1 sampled resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer medication to 1 (Resident 5) of 1 sample resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on employee file reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff were offered and educated about COVID-19 immunizations. This was evident in five (Staff #14, #25, #26, #27, #28) out of six employee files reviewed for staff immunization compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility investigative material, medical record review and interview with resident representatives along with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse. This was evident for 4 (Resident #17, 121, 125, 118) of 13 residents reviewed for abuse during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days for a resident admitted to hospice care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #17), of 1 resident reviewed for hospice during a survey
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately recorded. This was evident for 4 (Resident #35, #311,#110,# 25) of 68 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans for residents residing in the facility. This was evident for 4 (Resident , # 56, #26, #77, #40) of 68 residents reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL) care to dependent residents. This was evident for five (Resident #83, #25, #112, #15 and Resident #62) out of ten residents reviewed for ADL care.
Inspectors wrote4. Resident #56 has resided at the facility for more than one year and is legally blind. A review of the Minimum Data Set assessment, with an assessment reference date of 7/5/25 revealed the resident was interviewed in regard to activity preferences. This assessment revealed it was very important for the resident to have books, newspapers and magazines to read; to listen to music the resident likes; be around animals such as pets and to participate in religious services or practices. During an interview with the resident on 6/23/25 at 10:58 AM the resident denied that activity staff visit him/her. On 6/25/25 a review of the medical record revealed a care plan for activities, initiated in 2024 and with a revision date of 5/19/25. The interventions included, but were not limited to: Staff to provide 1:1 room visits as desired/available; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to keep a resident safe from significant medication errors. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #56) out of three residents reviewed for behavioral health services.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff accurately documented in the medical record. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #56) out of three residents reviewed for behavioral health service; and three (Resident #40, #62, and #268) out of ten residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and facility policies, interviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an effective infection prevention program that ensured staff implemented infection control practices. This was found to be evident for two (Resident #96, #70) of the 68 resident's reviewed and has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, document review it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective process in place to ensure a resident's personal property was kept safe and available to the residents. This was evident for 1 (Resident# 83) of 7 Residents reviewed for food during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodations to maintain residents' independence by failing to ensure access to call lights and lighting controls. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #40) out of ten residents reviewed for activities of daily living; and 10 out of 10 rooms observed for location of lighting controls.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure health care advance directives were discussed with a resident. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #79) out of three residents reviewed for advance directives.
Inspectors wrote2. An observation on 6/24/25 at 6:58 AM revealed that Resident #48's room had dark debris, dried food particles, and dried sticky fluid on the floor. The Resident's Representative was present and said, The floor has been like this for at least 2 weeks. In an interview on 6/24/25 at 9:21 AM in Resident #48's room, staff #36, a housekeeping technician, confirmed the concerns and stated that Residents' rooms were to be swept, mopped, and wiped down daily. During a subsequent interview with staff #37, the director of environmental services, in Resident #48's room, he confirmed that there were dark stains, debris, and dried sticky fluid on the floor. Staff then added that the Resident's room looked dirty and would be taken care of after the surveyor's intervention. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to implement their grievance policy when a resident alleged their property was missing. This was evident for 1 (Resident #102), of 3 residents reviewed for personal property during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased upon record review and pertinent staff interviews, it was determined that facility failed to ensure that incidents of alleged abuse were thoroughly investigated and reported to the state agency in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #125) of 13 residents reviewed for abuse during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the regulatory time frames to facilitate appropriate care planning and maintain current and accurate assessment records. This was evident for 1 (Resident #311) of 6 residents reviewed for accidents
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure interdisciplinary care plan meetings were held following Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #11) out of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Minimum Data Set- The MDS is a federally mandated assessment tool used by nursing home staff to gather information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and relevant interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide care consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing of an existing diabetic foot wound. This was evident for one (Resident #116) of two residents reviewed for pressure injuries during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions to assist with resident safety were implemented. This was found to be evident for three (Resident #11, #56 and #99) out of six residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide pain management, per physician orders, to residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #50, and #42) of 5 residents reviewed for pain management during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure behavioral health care services were provided as needed. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #56) out of three residents reviewed for behavioral health services.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure pharmacist reviewed sufficient sections of the resident's medical record to identify significant medication errors. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #56) out of three residents reviewed for behavioral health services.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and pertinent interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain safe operating condition of patient care equipment. This was evident for 1 resident complaint (Resident #115) of 20 resident complaints reviewed during this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical and administrative record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from significant medication errors as evidenced by a resident being administered medications that were ordered for their roommate.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and other pertinent documentation, observations, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision to prevent falls as evidenced by: 1) Failure of the geriatric nursing assistant (GNA) to remain with a resident who, due to a stroke and resulting muscle weakness and cognitive impairment, required total assistance with bathing during a shower. The resident sustained an unwitnessed fall during the shower. This fall resulted in a leg fracture, transfer to the hospital and subsequent surgical repair. 2) Failure of the GNA to provide supervision to a resident with severe dementia, who required extensive assistance with mobility, after assisting the resident to the toilet. The resident subsequently got off the toilet, started to walk and fell. This fall resulted in a fracture to the resident's nose. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement abuse policies and procedures. This was evident for 1 of 1 abuse policy reviewed and 1 self- reported incident (MD00164226) of 34 self-reports of abuse allegations.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that annual performance reviews were completed for the geriatric nursing assistants (GNA). This was found to be evident for all of the GNAs working in the faciltiy.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident representative and resident interview, observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans, 2) failed ensure staff to follow the resident's care plan related to behavior monitoring, and 3) failed to ensure staff followed the resident's care plan to use a mechanical lift for resident transfers. This was evident for 1 (#14) of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 1 ( #118) out of 37 residents reviewed for abuse. A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to evaluate and update a resident's plan of care after each assessment. This was evident for 1 (#14) of 7 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide thorough grooming and personal hygiene services for a resident who was dependent on staff for bathing. This was evident for 1 (#14) of 7 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement an ongoing resident centered activities program designed to meet the interests and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. This was evident for 1 (#36) of 3 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide care in accordance with standards of nursing practice as evidenced by 1) failing to ensure that medical devices brought with the resident at the time of admission were assessed, ordered and care planned, and 2) failing to ensure medications ordered for bowel regimen were administered as ordered. This was found evident for 1 (#109) of 5 residents reviewed for personal property (loop recorder), 1 (#419) of 1 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers and 1 (#500) of 4 residents reviewed for neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to reveal evidence that the resident or resident representative was informed of their right to formulate an advanced directive. This was evident for 1 (#14) of 4 residents reviewed for advanced directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, Interviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to follow their grievance process for a resident with missing property. This resulted in the resident not having access to a medical recorder/transmitter. This was evident for 1 resident, (#109) out of 5 residents reviewed for personal property.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility report investigation documentation and medical records, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from neglect as evidenced by the facility's failure to ensure that a medication for the treatment of constipation was administered as ordered; and the facility staff's failure to demonstrate basic assistance with activities of daily living for a resident dependent on staff for assistance. This was found to be evident for 1 (#500) of 4 resident's reviewed for neglect during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an allegation of abuse. This was evident for 1 (#17) of 32 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, 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 2 (#14, #89) of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide residents/representatives with a copy of their baseline care plan that included a summary of the resident's medication. This was evident for 1 (#87) of 1 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a director of the activities department that met the minimum qualifications. This was evident during the annual survey and had the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that physician progress notes were written, signed, and dated at each visit. This was evident for 1 (#14) of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the attending physician document in the medical record when an irregularity had been reviewed and what, if any action was taken. This was evident for 2 (#89, #48) of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary medication by failing to adequately monitor a resident for behavior related to psychotropic medication. This was evident for 2(#73), (#14) of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to keep complete and accurate medical records as evidenced by 1) failing to ensure a resident's active MOLST (medical order for life-sustaining treatment) form was maintained in the resident's medical record and accessible to staff, 2) failing to ensure primary provider notes in the electronic medical record documented the actual date of service, 3) failing to ensure geriatric nursing assistant documentation accurately reflected service provided to the resident, and 4) failing to ensure newly written MOLST forms were placed in a resident's medical record when received by the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a Quality Assurance Plan that included the facility specific plan for conducting quality assurance and performance improvement activities. This was evident during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations and interview, it was determined the facility 1) failed to ensure that all staff completed COVID screening prior to the start of work as per the facility's current policy; 2) failed to ensure that an employee report of a respiratory illness was conveyed to the Infection Preventionist (IP) nurse to facilitate tracking of possible respiratory outbreak, and failed to ensure that same employee accurately answered the COVID screening questions regarding recently experiencing symptoms upon return to work; 3) failed to ensure separation of clean and dirty portions of the laundry processing areas; and 4) failed to ensure that a resident with an antibiotic resistant infection (MRSA) was placed in an available private room. These deficient practices were found to be evident for 2 (#85, #86) of 8 employees reviewed for screening prior to start of shift; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of posted staffing information and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the required nurse staff information was posted in a clear and readable format as evidenced by failure to include the cumulative total and actual hours worked for the categories of nursing staff responsible for resident care: RN (registered nurse), LPN (licensed practical nurse), and GNA (geriatric nursing assistant). This practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure that residents and/or resident representatives could obtain copies of their medical records within the required time frame. This was evident for 1 (#262) of 6 complaints reviewed during the annual survey.
21 fire safety citations on file: 7 on June 30, 2026, 7 on June 30, 2025, 7 on November 15, 2022.
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) | 3.80 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.68 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.48 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.00 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.12 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 32.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 34.8% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.58 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 3.94 on weekdays and 3.48 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 6.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.71 in April to June 2025 to 3.80 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 | 3.80 | 0.68 | 3.94 | 3.48 | 6.3% | 0 of 90 | 112 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.77 | 0.59 | 3.89 | 3.46 | 5.4% | 0 of 92 | 116 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.73 | 0.64 | 3.84 | 3.46 | 5.3% | 0 of 92 | 115 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.71 | 0.68 | 3.84 | 3.38 | 6.1% | 0 of 91 | 118 |
| 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 | 25.0 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 41.9 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.3 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.6 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.6 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.0 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Ballenger Creek's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (57.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
57.0% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Maryland: 90 better, 29 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 399 eligible stays.
10.8% 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. 379 eligible stays.
6.5% 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. 261 eligible stays.
79.3% this home
Median of homes: Maryland61.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 203 residents counted.
0.4% 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. 267 residents counted.
3.6% 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. 267 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. 182 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: 347 BALLENGER 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 347 Ballenger Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2021 |
| Stern, Aryeh | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Bennett, Allison | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/05/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Shah, Hemen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Eidlisz, Solomon | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 03/26/2025 | |
| Gluck, Rivka | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 03/27/2025 | |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2021 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2021 | |
| Bennett, Allison | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/05/2023 | |
| Shah, Hemen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2021 |
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.