6012 Jefferson Boulevard, Frederick, MD 21703 · Frederick County · (301) 371-7160
65 certified beds, about 57 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215199 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 23, 2026, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 40 health citations since June 2019 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.31 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.98 of those hours.
51.1% 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 40 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents' call devices were in reach. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident #39) of 24 residents screened during the initial pool portion of the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to report an allegation of abuse timely, and 2) failed to report an allegation of abuse. This was evident for one facility reported incident (#351278) of 8 facility reported incidents (FRIs) reviewed during the recertification survey, and one resident (Resident #22) of three residents reviewed for grievances.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse. This was evident for 3 (#351276, #351281, and #2623047) of 8 facility reported incidents reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to communicate a resident's comprehensive care plan goals to the receiving healthcare institution to ensure safe and effective transition of care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #64) of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization.
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 facilitate appropriate care planning and maintain current, accurate assessment records. This was evident for 2 (Resident #43 and #52) of 3 residents reviewed for activities and 1 (Resident #55) of 4 residents reviewed for Resident assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for residents within the required regulatory timeframes to facilitate appropriate care planning and maintain current assessment records. This was evident for 1 (Resident #7) of 3 residents reviewed for Resident assessments and for 1 (Resident #27) of 3 residents reviewed for Nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately code residents' Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments correctly. This was evident for one (Resident #43) of one resident reviewed for communication and sensory, one (Resident #52) of 3 residents reviewed for Activities, and one (Resident #8), of 2 residents reviewed for dental care during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, resident-centered care plans. This was evident in 1 (Resident #43) of 1 resident reviewed for communication and sensory, and 1 (Resident #52) of 3 residents reviewed for ActivitiesThe
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) revise care plans, and 2) conduct care plan meetings after the completion of the comprehensive and/or quarterly assessments. This was evident for two residents (Resident #5, #8) of 2 residents reviewed for dental care, and one resident (Resident #62) of 2 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities that met residents' needs and preferences. This was evident for 2 (Resident #43 and #52) out of 3 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) effectively manage residents' pain, and 2) ensure pain management was provided to residents according to professional standards of practice. These was evident for 2 (Resident #43, #2) of 3 residents reviewed for pain management during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were cared for by licensed Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs). This was evident for 1 GNA (Staff #10) of 5 GNA licenses reviewed during the staffing investigation portion of the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure that resident medication storage areas and medical supplies were properly stored, free from expired items, and maintained in a sanitary and organized manner within 2 of 2 medication storage areas observed during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards. This was evident in 1 of 2 observations of the facility's kitchen during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff accurately documented in a resident's medical record. This was evident in one (Resident #69) of three residents reviewed for infection control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure all staff donned appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for enhanced barrier precautions. This was evident for 1 (Resident #62) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure full visual privacy was provided to residents residing in semi-private rooms. This was evident for 1 (Resident #12) of 1 resident reviewed for privacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure four of six residents reviewed for abuse (Residents (R) 22, R11, R106 and R35) out of a total sample 29 were free from resident-to-resident abuse. This failure had the potential to cause physical injury or psychosocial distress for the four residents involved.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, interviews, and review of Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) guidelines, the facility's water management program was incomplete in that it was not consistent with current ASHRAE guideline, which specifically called for the design to evaluate the potential exposure of Legionnaire's disease (a serious pneumonia infection) within a healthcare facility. This failure created a potential for the 43 facility residents, who were over the age of 65, to be infected by Legionella
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure two of two residents (Resident (R) 23 and R55) reviewed for hospital transfers in the sample of 29 was given a written copy of a bed hold notice prior to or within 24-hours of emergency transfer to the hospital. This failure created the potential for the residents and/or responsible parties to not have the information needed to safeguard their return to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, document review, and manufacturer's instruction review, the facility failed to provide education for one of one Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN1) to possess the competencies and skill set necessary to ensure proper technique was used to administer insulin for one of two residents (Resident (R)52) that received insulin during medication administration. This failure had the potential to result in the resident receiving the wrong dose of insulin.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and facility policy review, the facility failed to offer one of six residents (Resident (R) 37) and/or their representatives reviewed for immunizations, the opportunity for the resident to be vaccinated in accordance with nationally recognized standards out of a current facility census of 54. This practice had the potential to increase the risk for the residents to contract pneumonia.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to investigate a grievance regarding care concerns for a resident. This was evident for 1 (#14) of 8 residents reviewed for complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined facility staff failed to ensure that a resident who relied on staff for care needs had the care provided. This was evident for 2 (#14 and 902) of 8 residents reviewed for complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a call bell was within reach for every resident. This was evident for 2 (Residents #8, #47) residents observed during the initial tour of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased upon record review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to put a system in place to ensure that resident's grievances regarding call bell response time and staff interaction with residents were addressed in a timely manner and outcomes communicated back to the resident. This was true for three out of 48 resident council members but had the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to discuss changes in the resident's medical status related to end stage condition with the Resident Representative (RR). This was evident in 1 (R#45) of 1 resident reviewed regarding advanced directives in the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1. notify or include a Resident Representative (RR) in changes regarding residents' care and 2. to notify the physician, resident and/or their family and care staff of the unavailability of medications. This was evident for 2 (R#6 and #36) of 20 residents reviewed during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a facility reported incident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to protect a cognitively impaired resident's right to privacy. This was evident for 1 (R #98) of 20 residents reviewed during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Facility Reported Incident MD00 1390223, investigation review, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to follow policy on completing background employee checks of potential new employees. This was evident in 1 of 2 employees records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, facility investigations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a thorough investigations of abuse allegations related to injury of unknown origins. This was found to be evident for one out of the seven facility reported incidents (FRI) reviewed during the investigative portion of the survey (R#149).
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide the resident/resident representative with a copy within 48 hours of admission to the facility. This was evident for 1 (Residents #36) of 20 residents reviewed during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan to as evidenced by the facility's failure to develop a care plan to address a resident's chronic diagnosis and long-term use of antibiotics. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 20 residents (Resident #23) reviewed during the investigative stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to revise Resident #27's oxygen care plan regarding weaning Resident #27 from the use of continuous oxygen. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for oxygen use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan, as evidenced by failure to ensure a follow up urology consult to determine if the continued use of an antibiotic was necessary. This was evident for 1 of 20 (R#23) residents reviewed during the investigative stage of the long-term care survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that pharmacist recommendations (resulting from identified irregularities during the monthly pharmacy review were addressed and acted upon by the physician. This was found to be evident for 1 out of the 5 residents (Resident #23) sampled for medication regimen review during the investigative stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medication administration observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a medication administration error rate of less than 5 percent. This was evident for 3 errors involving Residents # 36 and #47 out of 30 opportunities for error observed on the Skyline Unit resulting in a medication administration error rate of 10%.
Inspectors wroteDELETE - KS TO IMPORT Based on observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to put a system in place to; ensure all drugs and biologicals in the facility are labeled according to professional standards, keep consistent temperature logs for medication and biological storage, and keep an accurate inventory log for controlled substances. This was true for 2 of 3 medication carts and 2 of 2 storage rooms reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to apply standard infection control practices while administering medications to residents. This was true for 2 (Residents # 10 and #36) of 3 residents reviewed during a medication administration observation on the Skyline unit. However, this deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents, visitors, and staff in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to take steps to offer a resident the pneumococcal and flu vaccine after admission. This was evident for 1 (Residents #47) of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations during an annual recertification survey.
18 fire safety citations on file: 8 on January 23, 2026, 5 on August 16, 2024, 5 on June 27, 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) | 3.31 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.98 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.12 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.62 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.72 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.1% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 35.7% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.77 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 3.39 on weekdays and 3.12 on weekends, 8% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 13.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.26 in April to June 2025 to 3.31 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 | 3.31 | 0.98 | 3.39 | 3.12 | 13.1% | 0 of 90 | 57 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.43 | 0.94 | 3.50 | 3.26 | 19.6% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.30 | 0.90 | 3.39 | 3.10 | 24.8% | 0 of 92 | 57 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.26 | 0.95 | 3.37 | 2.98 | 12.7% | 0 of 91 | 57 |
| 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 | 27.4 | 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 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.2 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.3 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.5 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.1 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.1 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.4 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Braddock Heights's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.5% 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. 147 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 160 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. 80 eligible stays.
73.6% 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. 53 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 72 residents counted.
4.3% 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. 72 residents counted.
90.9% 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. 33 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: 6012 JEFFERSON BOULEVARD 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6012 Jefferson Boulevard Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| As Family Vb Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| M Meisels Family Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| McLaurin, Lisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Wah, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Stern, Aryeh | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/23/2025 | |
| Stern, Rochel | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/23/2025 | |
| 6012 Jefferson Boulevard Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| As Family Vb Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| M Meisels Family Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| R Meisels Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2023 | |
| McLaurin, Lisa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Wah, John | 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.