525 Glenburn Avenue, Cambridge, MD 21613 · Dorchester County · (410) 221-1400
98 certified beds, about 94 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215221 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 19, 2025, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 49 health citations since March 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $50,879 in the last three years; the largest was $36,797, and the latest is dated December 9, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.98 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.71 of those hours.
39.0% 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 49 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to supervise a cognately impaired resident who was at high risk for elopement as evidenced by the resident leaving the facility unattended without the staff's knowledge. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1(#40) of 1 resident investigations reviewed for elopement during the recertification survey. The BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) assessment is a quick standardized cognitive screening tool used in long-term care facilities to gauge a resident's orientation, attention and memory recall through simple questions about the date and repeating three words. Scored from 0-15, it helps staff track changes in cognitive function, identify potential delirium or dementia, and determine if further specialized assessment is needed. Scores are categorized: [...]
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, record review, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain food service equipment in a manner that ensures sanitary food service operations to prevent possible foodborne illness. This was evident during the initial tour of the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clean and effective ventilation systems, thereby impeding proper airflow throughout the premises. This was evident in 13 out of 16 ventilation systems reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents had access to their calls bells if assistance was needed. This deficient practice was evidenced in 7 (#10, #28, #44, #59, #72, #83, & #85) out of 36 residents who resided on Choptank during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a clean homelike environment as evidenced by soiled and unlined waste baskets and stained wash sinks in residents' rooms. This deficient practice was observed on the Unit Choptank during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment sufficient to minimize or eliminate the risk of cross-contamination as evidenced by residents who shared a bathroom personal items were not labeled and failed to implement proper hand hygiene practices to help prevent the spread of pathogenic diseases. This was evident in 13 areas within the facility that were assessed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to assure residents whose funds are being managed by the facility have ready and reasonable access to their funds. This deficient practice has the potential to affect 58 of the 93 resident whose accounts are being managed by the facility when the recertification survey was conducted.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to complete through investigations for allegations of abuse. This deficient practice was evidenced in 2 (#38 & #59) of 5 investigations reviewed for a through investigation during the recertification survey.
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 when the resident was transferred/discharged from the facility to an acute care facility. This was evident for 1 (resident # 2) of 3 residents reviewed that were transferred to an acute care facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to initiate a person-centered care plan for a resident who was high risk for wandering, required assistance with oral hygiene, and a resident who frequently refused ADL care. This deficient practice was evidenced in 2 (#11 & #40) of 11 resident records reviewed for person centered care plans during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to adhere to professional nursing standards as evidenced by the nursing staff failure to document why a resident did not receive their enteral nutrition. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1 (#10) of 1 resident record reviewed for enteral nutrition during the recertification survey. The Maryland Nurse Practice Act guide and governs nursing practice in the state of Maryland. Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, and certificate holders are expected to practice within the established regulations defined by the Nurse Practice Act. According to 10.27.10.02 B (3) (c) (i) The LPN contributes to the nursing assessment by recording data in a manner which is complete, timely, and accurate.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Geriatric Nursing Assistant, (GNA) personnel files and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to conduct yearly performance reviews at least every 12 months on 1 out of 2 GNA files reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on review of medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to respond to recommendations made by consulting pharmacists in a timely manner. This was evident for 1of 5 residents (Residents #4) reviewed during the investigation phase of the survey for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident meals were palatable, sufficiently portioned, and the foods were maintained outside of the food danger zone. This was evident for 2 (Resident #82 and Resident #5) of 2 residents interviewed and 2 of 2 foodservice operation days observed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on the QAPI process and interview it was determined that the facility staff were unable to report what individuals are legally responsible to establish and implement policies regarding the management and operations of the facility.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain essential equipment in proper operating condition. This was evident for 4 of 4 pieces of equipment reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, record review, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a call bell system was accessible to residents. This was evident for 1 (Resident #8) of 1 resident's and 1of 1 restroom call bell systems reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with a homelike environment. This was found to be evident for 15 residents (#11, #20, #24, #35, #39, #52, #58, #60, #61, #62, #65, #68, #70, #79, #238) out of 94 resident environments observed by the surveyors during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document wound assessments in a resident 's medical record. This was found evident for 1 (Resident #17) of 2 Residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to hold care plan meetings with an interdisciplinary team for residents at the time of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This was found evident for 1 (Resident #17) of 5 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident's medical records, and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL) care in accordance with the resident's plan of care. This was found to be evident for 2 of 4 (Resident #188 and #17) residents reviewed for ADLs during an annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with the professional standards for oxygen administration. This was found evident of 1 out of 3 (Resident #17) residents reviewed for respiratory care during an annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews and facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place that ensured a resident's medication irregularity report was reviewed by the primary care physician and that the recommendations were addressed timely. This was found evident of 1 (#17) of 5 residents reviewed for medication regimen review.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary drugs. This was evident for 1 (Resident #17) or 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to limit a as needed psychotropic medication from being prescribed for less than 14 days. This was found evident in 1 (Resident #17) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store medications appropriately according to standards of practice. This was evident for 1 of 30 medications observed during medication administration and 1 of 1 random floor observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, facility policy review, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices by 1) safeguarding Resident identifiable information from the public and 2) Keeping accurate documentation. This was found evident in 3 (Resident #17, #21 and #188) of 53 Residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and review of policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that staff performed hand hygiene. This was evident for 2 (# 28 and # 29) out of 7 staff observed for hand hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's responsible party (RP) was informed of a change in the medical regimen. This was evident for 1 (#89) out of 53 residents that were part of the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's responsible party (RP) was informed of a fall. This was evident for 1 (#88) out of 53 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to protect a Resident from abuse from a staff member. This was found evident of 1 of 17 (Resident #37) Residents reviewed for abuse allegations during an annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to immediately report an allegation of abuse to the State Office of Health Care Quality. This was found evident in 1 out of 17 (Resident #189) Residents reviewed for abuse allegations during an annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted and maintain documentation of the investigation. This was evident for 2 (Resident # 88 and #90) out of the 53 residents that were part of the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed: 1) to ensure that a physician sent a death certificate to a funeral home and 2) failed to ensure the physician provided supervision for a resident with significant weight loss. This was evident for 1 (#337) out 3 residents reviewed for death and 1 (Resident # 96) out of 1 resident reviewed for weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of pertinent facility documentation it was determined that the facility failed to 1) maintain proper infection control and sanitation procedures and 2) promote a resident's dignity and respect while providing feeding assistance to a resident during lunch. This was found to be evident during observations on both units and individual observations for 1 (Resident #70) when a dining experience was observed during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of pertinent information it was determined that the facility failed to adequately train their Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA's) to serve as dietary personal during meal services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations it was determined the facility failed to enhance and promote a resident's dignity and respect while providing feeding assistance to a resident during lunch. This was found to be evident for 1 resident (Resident # 70) when a dining experience was observed during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility reported incident MD00128582, investigative information, medical records and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to keep a resident free from abuse. This was evident for 1 out of 3 residents (Resident #81) reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to include the required statement of the resident's appeal rights and ombudsman contact information in the written notice of transfer. This was found to be evident for 2 out of 2 residents (Residents #90 and #73), reviewed for hospitalization during the investigative stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with the facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the resident's status as evidenced by failure to: 1. assess medication usage and 2. assess the resident's dental condition. This was found to be evident for 2 out of 6 residents (Resident #82 and Resident #1) reviewed during the investigative stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview with facility staff, if was determined that the facility failed to follow a resident's care plan related to nutritional intervention needs. This was evident during the review of 1 of 25 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for care planning during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that the hand off communication regarding resident consultations and prescriptions were clearly and effectively communicated with staff. This was evident for 1 out of 9 residents (Resident #1) reviewed during the investigative stage of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure newly hired Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA's) had skills assessments completed prior to being allowed to work independently with residents. This was found to be evident for 2 out of the 4 employee files (GNA #20 and #17) reviewed for new hire competencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files and interview it was determined that the facility failed to complete annual performance reviews for Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA's) for a more than a one year period of time. This was found to be evident for 2 out of the 2 GNA's (GNA #14 and #16) reviewed for annual evaluation and education.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure anti-anxiety medication was destroyed after a resident expired and that narcotics that remained in the facility were included in the shift to shift narcotic count. This was found to be evident during observation of 1 of the 2 medication storage rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of medical records and facility policies it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a less than 5% error rate during medication administration as evidenced by: 1) Staff crushing medications that were on the facility Do Not Crush list, including extended release and 2) staff failing to take blood pressure prior to administering blood pressure medications. These errors were identified based on observation of 3 out of 3 residents (Residents #5, #27 and #81) observed during medication pass observation with 1 nurse on 1 unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the resident was served a therapeutic diet as prescribed by the physician. This was observed of 1 out of 14 residents (Resident #37) during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews with residents and facility staff it was determined the facility failed to have a resident's physician assessment as part of the resident medical record. This was found to be evident for 1 of 25 residents, (Resident # 88) reviewed during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and review of complaint and maintenance documentation it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure batteries for electronic lifts were charged and available for use and failed to have documentation of preventative maintenance of the lifts. This was found to be evident on 1 of the 2 nursing units.
33 fire safety citations on file: 9 on December 19, 2025, 19 on March 5, 2024, 5 on March 29, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 9, 2025 | Fine | $14,082 |
| May 2, 2024 | Fine | $36,797 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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) | 3.98 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.71 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.60 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.58 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.69 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.0% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 43.8% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.83 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 4.13 on weekdays and 3.60 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 22.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.06 in April to June 2025 to 3.98 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 | 3.98 | 0.71 | 4.13 | 3.60 | 22.8% | 0 of 90 | 94 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.06 | 0.75 | 4.20 | 3.70 | 23.3% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.06 | 0.71 | 4.18 | 3.73 | 22.4% | 0 of 92 | 95 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.06 | 0.63 | 4.21 | 3.68 | 23.8% | 0 of 91 | 95 |
| 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.
| 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 | 29.6 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 25.1 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.4 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.8 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.7 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Chesapeake Woods's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Maryland: 90 better, 29 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 181 eligible stays.
14.3% this home
Worse than 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. 189 eligible stays.
7.3% 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. 113 eligible stays.
75.5% 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. 94 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. 133 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 133 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Maryland98.1% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 4 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: 525 GLENBURN 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 525 Glenburn 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 | |
| Borodulia, Nicholas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Kramer, Amanda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/18/2024 | |
| 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 | |
| Borodulia, Nicholas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Kramer, Amanda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/18/2024 |
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.