16 Fusting Avenue, Catonsville, MD 21228 · Baltimore County · (410) 747-1800
136 certified beds, about 119 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1974
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215097 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 18, 2025, inspectors cited 19 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 82 health citations since December 2018 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 3.38 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.38 of those hours.
44.7% 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 82 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to complete a thorough investigation of an allegation of misappropriation of property. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1 (#1) of 1 investigation reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to dispose of refuse properly. This deficient practice was discovered during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to document contact with family members regarding care concerns. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1 (#2) of 2 resident records reviewed for ADL care. Additionally the facility failed to accurately document all items in a crash cart on 1 of 4 units.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled:Number of residents citedBased on observations and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) maintain proper labeling, dating, and expiration practices for food items, and 2) properly thaw raw meat in the proper area of the kitchen which had the potential to cross contaminate the food. This was evident during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a dignified existence to residents as evidenced by storing the residents' clothing in garbage bags, storing the residents' shoes and bed pan in their wheelchairs, and failed to repair furniture in a resident's room. This deficient practice was discovered during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the resident who reside on Unit C had their call bells to notify the staff of their needs. This deficient practice was evidenced in 7 (#4, #18, #29, #38, #40, #78, #92) of 27 residents who resided on Unit C when this deficient practice was discovered during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interview with the staff, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) provide clean and sanitary carpets in resident care areas, and 2) maintain a clean and comfortable homelike environment. This was evident for all carpeted areas on the first floor, 4 of 4 rooms on Unit C, and 2 (Resident #47 and #91) of 2 residents observed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to practice according to professional nursing standards as evidenced of a nurse failing to clarify a medication order prior to preparing/administering the medication to resident's, a nurse documented medications were given but there was no documentation to verify the resident received the medication, and a nurse documented a medical test was done that was not. This deficient practice was evidenced in 3 (#14, #18, #50) of 3 medication administration observations and 1 (#6) of 1 resident record reviewed for a change in condition during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record, review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to: 1) update staffing boards on Unit's A, C and D during various shifts, and 2) include all the required components on the posted nurse staffing information sheet. This deficient practice occurred on 3 of 4 units during the review of sufficient and competent nurse staffing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly as evidenced of waste bags on the ground behind the facility's dumpster, COVID 19 test kits on the ground behind the dumpster, empty bottles of water, the dumpster lid, and waste on the ground in front, back and sides of the dumpster. This deficient practice was discovered during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with the facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) provide alcohol-based sanitizer and cold running water necessary for hand hygiene procedures, and 2) maintain infection control precautions with residents use of a urinal. This was evident for 2 (Residents #33 and #42) out of 2 residents' rooms and 1 of 1 observation of urinal storage in a resident's room during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain equipment in safe operating condition. This deficient practice was discovered during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled:Number of residents cited:Based on observations, and interviews with the residents and facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure: 1) there was an accessible call bell within reach for Resident #52, 2) call bell lights were operable and visible above the residents' doors for room [ROOM NUMBER] and #106, and 3) a functioning call bell system was installed in the Physical Therapy bathroom for resident use. This was evident for 4 of 4 resident call bells observed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews and review of contractor records, it was determined that the facility failed to keep a sanitary environment. This was found evident in the conference room, ice machine room, kitchen, laundry room and rehabilitation room during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, pest control management record reviews, facility staff interviews, and an investigation into a complaint, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective pest control program. This was found evident in 3 out of 3 recurrent recommendations given to the facility by the pest management company, and also evident for Complaint #292313.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide accommodation for a married couple who resided in the facility to live together. This deficient practice was evidenced in 2 (#56, #57) of 2 residents who are married who were residing separately in the facility. This deficient practice was discovered during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, staff interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation for the use of a physical restraint. This was evident for (Resident #39) reviewed during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implementing the comprehensive person-centered care plans' interventions that includes timelines to meet residents on-going needs i.e. toileting/ oxygen supply needs. This was evident for 1 (Resident #59) of 2 residents reviewed for care plans during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to consistently provide Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care to a dependent resident as evidenced by mucous on a resident's face/neck and the staff failed to provide incontinence care to a resident who had a strong scent of urine. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1 (#50) of 1 resident observed with unmet ADL needs during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that: 1) tube feeding bag was appropriately labeled and 2) the cap on the tube feeding bag was securely closed to prevent potential cross-contamination and the attraction of pests/insects. This was evident for 1 (Resident #116) out of 1 resident reviewed for tube feeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store and label medications and biologics as evidenced by: 1) failing to ensure that multi-dose medications were properly labeled and dated, also 2) that wasted pills were properly disposed of and 3) resident medication was secured in a locked cart. This was evident in 2 of 4 medication carts observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) maintain medical records in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices by keeping complete documentation and 2) file documents in the correct resident's medical record. This was found evident for 2 (Resident #132 and #135) of 60 sampled residents, and for 1 (Resident #6) of 1 resident chart reviewed for change in condition documentation during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in a Resident's medical record. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #135) of 60 residents reviewed in the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility policy and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to adequately document wounds and responses to treatment of skin conditions. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #138) of 2 residents reviewed for wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to utilize an appropriate pain assessment based on a Resident's cognitive status. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 135) of 4 residents reviewed for pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of consult services, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to administer medication according to procedures that assure accurate dispensing of medications. This was found evident in 2 (Resident #135 ‰) out of 7 residents reviewed for medication regimen review.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with a copy of their baseline care plan and their admission medications. This was evident for 2 (#97, #107) of 3 residents reviewed for baseline care plans during the annual survey. This has the potential to affect all residents that are newly admitted to the facility.
Inspectors wrote2) Resident #63's medical record reviewed on 3/16/23 at 12:06 PM revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes, depression, and dementia without behavioral disturbance. Review of a care plan focus/problem initiated on 8/19/21 related to depression did not reveal a resident-specific goal with measurable objectives in order to evaluate the resident's progress toward his/her goal. The goal for this care area was simply written as the resident will show decreased signs and symptoms of depression through the 90-day review date. There is not any indication of the signs and symptoms the staff should assess or the baseline for each evaluation and review. The care plan interventions and goals have remained without revisions since 8/1/21. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews and interviews with staff and a resident, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an interdisciplinary team, which included the resident and or the resident's representatives, contributed to the resident's comprehensive care plan as evidenced by the failure to conduct a quarterly care plan meeting. Additionally, facility staff failed to document an evaluation of each care plan for effectiveness and revise the care plan following each required assessment. This is exemplified for 10 residents (#23, #12, #63, #15, #11, #41, #58, #25, #29, #72) out of 35 residents investigated during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to properly store medications, covid test supplies, and resident care equipment in 2 of 2 medication rooms and 3 of 4 medication carts observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, resident interviews, and observations of the kitchen services with the testing of a food tray, it was determined that the facility failed to serve food at a preferable/palatable temperature. Food complaints and concerns were identified for 4 (#320, #116, #326, #322) of 29 residents selected in the final sample and a failed test tray was identified D-wing. This had the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's room and bed breakdown, observations, and interview it was determined that the residents have limited access to space to accommodate dining. This is identified for the residents residing in the A, C, and D wings of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to treat each resident in a dignified manner by 1) leaving a urinal that contained urine on the bedside table next to the resident's lunch, 2) standing over a resident while feeding the resident, This was evident for 3 (Resident #322, #11) of 35 residents investigated during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and staff interview it was determined the facility staff failed to have a process to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to keep the building clean, neat, attractive, and in good repair. This was evident throughout the survey and in 3 of 4 nursing units.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, review of facility reported incident investigations and review of policies, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and injuries of an unknown source. This was evident for 5 (Resident #327, #328, #329, #331, #27) of 9 residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and injuries of an unknown source during this complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and medical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide thorough grooming and personal hygiene services. This was evident for 3 (#41 and #58) out of 4 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care during the annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a complaint, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) ensure resident's weekly weights were obtained and documented, 2) follow physician's orders for dressing changes, 3) ensure residents received medications as ordered by the physician, 4) ensure residents received surgical wound care continuously and document wound status in weekly skin assessments, 5) monitor a resident's blood sugar levels as per physician's orders, 6) receive appropriate incontinent care, and 7) residents are taken to specialist appointments this is identified for 7 residents (#333, #320, #97, #375, #33, #29, and #25) of 35 residents investigated during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that the facility was free of medication error rates of 5% or greater. This was evident for 2 errors out of 26 opportunities for error observed during Medication Administration review, resulting in a medication error rate of 7.69%.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, resident, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop, prepare, and distribute menus that reflect a resident's nutritional wishes. This was evident for 4 (#320, #116, #326, #322) of 29 residents in the facility reviewed during a recertification and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide a resident with the right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care. This was evident for 1 (#107) of 1 resident reviewed that was cognitively intact and deemed capable to make own decisions but was locked in a memory care unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews and review of the medical record, it was determined that the facility staff failed to support resident choices. This was evident for 1(#19) of 2 residents reviewed for choices.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide a notice of rights and services to a resident upon admission to the facility. This was evident for 1 (#107) of 1 resident reviewed that was cognitively intact and deemed capable to make own decisions but was locked in a memory care unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of the bed hold policy upon transfer of a resident to an acute care facility. This was evident for 1 (Resident #118) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct an accurate Minimum data set (MDS) assessment by failing to include a resident ' s vision problems. This was evident for 1 (#72) of 7 residents reviewed for communication and sensory.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) provide a physician-ordered safety device for 1 (resident #12) 5 residents reviewed for accidents and 2) promote an environment free from potential accidents by failing to ensure the central supply room and dirty utility room remain locked in the memory care unit. This was evident for 6 days as observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) ensure a resident who admitted to the facility with a urinary catheter was continuedly received care for a foley catheter, and 2) develop a care plan which included the use of the catheter and associated interventions. This was evident for 1 (#66) of 2 residents reviewed for bowel and bladder incontinence during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of medical records, observations, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents' colostomy care was provided by appropriate competent skilled nursing staff. This was evident for 1 (Resident #58) of 2 residents reviewed for colostomy care during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure documented Resident ' s new psychotic diagnosis. This was evident for 1 (Resident #83) of 6 residents' unnecessary medication reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, documentation review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an accurate account of all controlled substances. This was evident for 1 of 4 medication carts observed during medication storage review.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed 1) to ensure that behavior monitoring including interventions and effectiveness of the interventions was accurately documented in the resident ' s record for 1 (#44) of 2 residents reviewed for Behavioral-Emotional, and 2) it was determined that the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records as evident for 1 (#372) of 35 residents investigated during an annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to develop policies and procedures to ensure residents' education, documentation, and procedure related to the Influenza vaccine for residents, and 2) failed to document/restore residents' Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccination consents in their medical records. This was evident for 1 (Resident #58) out of 5 residents reviewed who were eligible for Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccines during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that building parts were kept clean and/or in good repair. This was identified in the ventilation ducts in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to post the staffing requirements at the beginning of each shift and failed to ensure the information was complete, accurate, and current.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 9 (#16, #35, #255, #43, #20, #79, #100, #77 and #106) of 34 investigations conducted during the survey The MDS is part of the Resident Assessment Instrument that was Federally mandated in legislation passed in 1986. The MDS is a set of assessment screening items employed as part of a standardized, reproducible, and comprehensive assessment process that ensures each resident's individual needs are identified, that care is planned based on those individualized needs, and that the care is provided as planned to meet the needs of each resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview of facility staff and review of dietary supervisor credentials, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure a full time qualified dietetic service supervisor for oversight of food preparation. This was evident during the facility's annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's scheduled meal service times and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that there was no more than 14 hours between dinner and breakfast the following day. This was evident on all units of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1) properly label and date food items and remove expired food items, 2) failed to maintain food service equipment in a manner that ensured sanitary food service operations, 3) failed to ensure that dietary staff were in compliance with wearing hair/beard restraints, 4) failed to distribute and store food under sanitary conditions and 5) failed to monitor dishwasher temperatures and the walk-in freezer temperatures. This was evident during the initial tour of the kitchen and on a subsequent visit.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, interviews with staff and review of resident and facility records, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective quality assessment and assurance program by failing to implement plans of action to correct quality deficiencies identified during the prior annual quality indicator survey.
Inspectors wrote2) Observation was made of Resident #97 lying in bed on 12/17/18 at 2:35 PM. Resident #97 was wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen flowing at 2L/min (Liters per minute). The water bottle on the oxygen concentrator was dated 10/31/18, and the nasal canula tubing was dated 10/31/18. On 12/17/18 at 2:40 PM, Staff #1 was interviewed and asked how often the water on the oxygen concentrator was changed and how often the tubing was changed. The response was every Wednesday. The surveyor showed Staff #1 the date on the water bottle and the response was, well he/she is prn. The surveyor asked if the opened bottle of water attached to the oxygen concentrator should have sat there opened for 47 days and Staff #1 stated, it should not have. I will change it right now. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to keep the walk-in freezer in the kitchen in safe operating condition. This was evident during the initial tour and subsequent visits to the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility maintained an adequate amount of potable emergency water available. This was evident during the facilities annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide the resident and their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan including the resident's medications and dietary instructions. This was evident for 1 (#205) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents and 1(#92) of 5 residents reviewed for position/mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive, accurate resident-centered care plans with measurable goals. This was evident for 6 (#77, #106, #77, #92, #102 and #255) of 34 residents investigated during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interviews with a resident and resident representative, it was determined that the facility staff failed to revise a residents plans of care and failed to ensure that a resident's representative was offered an opportunity to participate in development of the care plan. This was evident for 7 (# 64, #79, #205, #51, #100, #38 and #106) of 34 residents reviewed during the investigative phase of the survey. A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide care and services that promote the highest practicable well-being by failing to ensure proper positioning of a dependent resident for dining. This was evident for 1 (#79) of 6 residents reviewed for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, review of the medical record and interviews with the resident and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident with limited range of motion receive appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion. This was evident for 3 (#64, #102 and #92) of 5 residents reviewed for mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) personnel files and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to conduct yearly performance reviews and review with the GNAs at least every 12 months this was evident for 3 out of 6 personnel files reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of any significant medication errors. This was evident for 1 (#42) of 1 resident reviewed for Behavioral-Emotional services.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records. This was evident for 3 (#79, #106 and #16) of 34 residents reviewed during the investigative phase of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff, Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #2 failed to treat residents with dignity and respect. This was evident for 3 Residents (#28, #40, and #205) out of 49 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to accommodate the residents individual dining needs by failing to provide assistance with positioning for dining. This was evident for 1 (#79) of 6 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview during facility environmental observations, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. This was observed on both floors of the facility on 4 of 4 nursing units.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to timely report an allegation of abuse. This was evident for 1 (#255) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to document a resident's discharge in the medical record. This was evident for 1 (#107) of 3 residents reviewed for discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to orient, prepare and document a resident's preparation for a transfer to the hospital. This was evident for 1 (#255) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interviews with a residents family member and facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide necessary service to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for a resident who is dependent on others. This was evident for 1 (#205) of 6 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that the resident's environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible by failing to ensure that the bed of a resident at risk for falls was kept in a low position, and that the resident was assisted in positioning for meals to minimize choking risk. This was evident for 1 (#79) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for a resident with a Foley catheter. This was evident for 1 (#106) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview and review of the medical record, it was determined that the facility staff failed to have an effective system in place for pain management as evidenced by failure to have complete pain assessments when the resident experienced pain and failure to implement the resident's plan of care for pain. This was evident for 1 (#77) resident reviewed for pain management.
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, side effects, or adverse consequences related to psychotropic medication. This was evident for 1(#255) of 5 resident's reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interview with staff, it was determined the facility staff failed to properly label and store all drugs and biologicals by storing medicated creams and lotions on a dresser in the resident's room. This was evident for 1 (#77) of 31 resident bedroom areas observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to put a system in place to ensure that background screens were conducted prior to the hiring of staff to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation of residents, and misappropriation of residents' property. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
31 fire safety citations on file: 9 on August 18, 2025, 10 on March 24, 2023, 12 on December 21, 2018.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.38 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.38 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.11 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.97 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.03 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 55.0% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.87 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 3.49 on weekdays and 3.11 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 19.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.49 in April to June 2025 to 3.38 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 | 3.38 | 0.38 | 3.49 | 3.11 | 19.9% | 0 of 90 | 119 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.41 | 0.44 | 3.51 | 3.17 | 15.6% | 0 of 92 | 114 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.54 | 0.47 | 3.65 | 3.25 | 18.3% | 0 of 92 | 115 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.49 | 0.47 | 3.64 | 3.12 | 23.5% | 0 of 91 | 120 |
| 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 | 20.0 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.9 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.9 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.6 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Catonsville's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.7% 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. 106 eligible stays.
10.7% 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. 106 eligible stays.
6.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Maryland: 5 better, 6 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 78 eligible stays.
87.9% 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. 58 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Maryland0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 101 residents counted.
0.6% 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. 101 residents counted.
90.0% 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. 40 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: 16 FUSTING 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 Fusting Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2021 |
| Stern, Aryeh | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Bharaj, Narender | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/23/2022 | |
| Samberg, Meir | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/07/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Eidlisz, Solomon | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 03/27/2025 | |
| 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 | |
| Bharaj, Narender | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/23/2022 | |
| Samberg, Meir | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/07/2023 |
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.