6000 Bellona Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21212 · Baltimore City County · (410) 323-4223
112 certified beds, about 90 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 1970
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215074 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 17, 2026, inspectors cited 19 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 76 health citations since September 2022 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 3.42 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.36 of those hours.
65.7% 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 76 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and review of facility documentation it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a Performance Improvement Project (PIP) was identified and implemented through the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee and/or Quality Assurance Performance and Improvement (QAPI) program annually. This was found evident for 1 year of QAA/QAPI notes reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain and account for scheduled Quality Assessment and Assurance meetings. This was evident for 5 of the 11 months QAA meetings were held July 2025- June 2026.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident's interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, comfortable and homelike environment for residents. This was evident on 3 of 4 units and 1 of 1 observation of the courtyard during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received reasonable accommodation of the call bell system. This was evident for 2 (Resident #5 and #32) of 24 residents observed during the initial screen process of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete an admission comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within the required timeframe. This was evident for 1 (Resident #73) of 7 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan to meet the needs of a Resident. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #13) out of 45 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and review of medical records it was determined that the facility failed to:1) update a care plan, 2) involve the Resident in the interdisciplinary care planning process. This was evident of 2 (Resident #7 and Resident #11) out of 45 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure finger nail care was provided to residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #24, and #71) of 2 residents observed for nail care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide treatments and appropriate follow-up for a resident's condition. This was found to be evident of 2 (Resident #92 & #11) out of 45 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to adequately assist a dependent resident during Activity of Daily Living (ADL) cares. This was found evident for 1 (Resident #11) out of 6 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure respiratory care was provided in accordance with physician orders. This was evident for 3 (Resident #72, #20 & #73) of 4 residents observed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the primary medical provider failed to review and revise the total program of care. This was found evident for 1 (Resident #28) out of 45 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a complaint #3055819, record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide evidence that accounts for some narcotic drug record use and reconciliation. This was evident for 1 of 3 nursing units reviewed for alleged narcotic misappropriation during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to carry out Pharmacist recommendations on three different occasions following the monthly medication regimen review (MRR). This was evident for 1(#6) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physicians' orders are followed. This was evidenced by staff giving as needed narcotics outside of the recommended parameters for 2 (Resident $42 and #75) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the annual survey. The findings Include. 1). On 07/15/2026 at 4:37 PM Review of the June 2026 Medication administration records (MAR) revealed that Resident #75 was getting their PRN (as needed) narcotic pain medication when their pain level was documented as zero on 6/3, 6/7, and 6/11. The order was to give oxycodone HCL oral tablet 5MG- Give 4 tablets by mouth every 4 hours as needed for severe pain level of 6-10. Further review of July 2026 MAR revealed a second PRN order for narcotic pain medication written as: Oxycodone HCL oral tab 5MG: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to 1), store and serve food in a manner that prevents foodborne illness and 2), failed to date and label resident's food stored in the nourishment refrigerator. This was evident during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a complaint #3055819, record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to employ a Registered Nurse (RN) in accordance with Maryland State laws. This was evident for 1 (Staff #2) of 3 employee files reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to separate the clean and soiled laundry areas with a closed barrier to prevent the potential for cross-contamination and failed to maintain a process to identify residents who required Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP). This was evident in the laundry room and 3 (#40, #44, and #54) out of 10 rooms observed for precaution signage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that there was an effective pest control program in place at the facility to be free from pests. This was evident for several observations throughout the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of clinical records, all pertinent facility administrative records, and interviews with the facility staff, it was determined that the facility nursing staff failed to 1) follow the physician's specific pulse and blood pressure parameters before administering cardiac medications to residents, and 2) failed to document an associated blood pressure before administering the cardiac medication. This was evident for 1 (Residents #6) of 9 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the resident or representative with an outcome and/or resolution following the conclusion of a grievance investigation for 1 (R#12) of 6 sampled residents reviewed for grievances.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, review of the facility-reported incident, review of the facility's Abuse Prevention Policy, and review of the facility's investigative documentation, the facility failed to ensure Resident #5 was free from verbal and mental abuse when a staff member yelled at the resident and threatened to have a family member come to the facility to 'take care' of the resident, for 1 of 3 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. Review conducted on 5/14/2026 at 10.15 AM. The Abuse Prevention Policy revealed that the facility policy prohibited verbal and mental abuse toward residents. The policy further indicated residents were to be free from verbal threats, intimidation, harassment, and abusive language by facility staff. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff implemented interventions to prevent a resident from falling from bed during an incontinence change for 1 of 3 sampled residents for accidents. (R#6)
Inspectors wroteBased on Observation, record review, and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors as evidenced by facility staff failing to administer medications in accordance with professional standards. This was evident for 1 (#5) of 8 resident reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, facility nursing staff failed to follow a physician's order for an upper right quadrant ultrasound for a resident (Resident #6). This was evident for 1 of 7 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) conduct annual performance reviews of Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) and 2) provide regular, in-service education based on the outcome of those individual performance reviews. This was evident for 5 (GNA #49, GNA #50, GNA #1, GNA #51, GNA #52) of 5 randomly selected GNAs' records reviewed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. This was evident on 2 of 3 nursing units observed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility reported incidents, record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of abuse within 2 hours of the allegation and misappropriation of property within 24 hours to the regulatory agency, the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ). This was evident for 8 (#120, #107, #117, #67, #81, #103, #104, #122) residents reviewed for 21 facility reported incidents during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility reported incidents, medical records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide documentation that allegations of abuse and misappropriation of property were thoroughly investigated. This was evident for 7 (#120, #127, #117, #101, #81, #103, #126) of 21 residents reviewed for facility reported incidents during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to hold care plan meetings to include the interdisciplinary team, resident and resident's representative for residents. This was evident for 5 (Resident #1, #4, #9, #67, and #75) of 64 residents reviewed during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for residents (Resident #40, # 75, #106 and #113). This was evident for 4 of 64 residents reviewed during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to 1) ensure that fall precautions were in place, per the physician's orders, for a resident with a history of falls from the bed, 2) follow the resident's smoking plan of care, and 3) provide supervision for residents requiring supervision while smoking. This was evident for 4 (Resident #4, #1, #83, and #97) of 64 residents reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of complaints, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to 1) provide timely medication to meet the needs of the residents, and 2) ensure that narcotic medications were consistently reconciled by two nurses at change of shift. This was evident for 3 (#67, #108, #111) of 64 residents reviewed, and 4 halls ([NAME], [NAME], [NAME], and [NAME]) of 4 halls of narcotic and controlled substance log binders reviewed for accuracy and completeness of controlled medication storage and documentation during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a tour of the kitchen, staff interview and observation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1) ensure proper disposal of foods no longer safe to consume, and 2) store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident for 2 out of 3 kitchen tours and observation of a nourishment room during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a complaint, observation of resident rooms, common shared areas, interviews, and documentation review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1)follow infection control practices and guidelines to prevent the development and transmission of infection and disease, 2) ensure staff donned appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) for enhanced barrier precautions during medication administration to resident with a Gastrostomy tube and post appropriate Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) signage, 3) place order for contact precaution and care plan for a resident with an infectious disease, 4) place precaution order and signage on the door for EBP residents. This was evident on 3 of 3 hallways observed, 5 (Residents #11, #128, #12, #27, and #44) of 7 residents reviewed for Infection Control during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of restrooms for residents and visitors, a nursing station, a public shower room, and facility staff offices, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, visitors, and staff as identified. This was evident in 2 staff bathrooms observed on 2 nursing units, 2 of 2 shower rooms, and 2 staff offices observed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation during the initial tour of the facility and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident had the call bell control by their side. This was evident for 2 (Resident #9 and #43) out of the 64 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident Council meeting minutes and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to demonstrate their response and rationale for concerns identified by the Resident Council. This was found to be evident based on review of 4 months of Resident Council meeting minutes.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify a resident's representative (Resident #13 and #110) and a resident's physician (Resident #13) for a change in condition. This was evident for 2 of 64 residents reviewed during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, review of facility documentation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to protect a resident from verbal abuse from facility staff (Resident #104). This was evident for 1 of 64 residents reviewed during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a facility reported incident, medical records, controlled drug sheets, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation of narcotics. This was evident for 1 (#81) of 22 residents reviewed for facility reported incidents during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 3 (#127, #111, #108) of 64 residents reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure 1) a baseline care plan was completed and 2) a summary, including a current list of medications, was provided to the resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #101) out of 3 closed records reviewed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a care plan was developed to address a resident's catheter use. This was evident for 1 (Resident #80) out 64 residents that were part of the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of resident medical records and interviews with facility staff, the facility failed to 1) address a significant weight loss, and 2) follow the recommendations of the Dietitian for a resident. This deficiency was evident in 2 (Resident #9 and #116) of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and medical record review, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide respiratory care to meet the needs of residents. This was evidenced by: absence of physician orders indicating the use of oxygen for residents, failure to maintain nasal cannulas in a sanitary manner, and failure to administer oxygen according to the prescribed settings. This was evident for three residents (#1, #3, and #13) reviewed for respiratory care during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) properly assess for pain, 2) have parameters for pain medications used for pain management, 3) provide nonpharmacological intervention for a resident's reported pain, 4) received PRN (as needed) pain medication according to the Physician order set parameters (a specific instruction given for administration of medication), and 5) failed to administer a scheduled pain medication according to a Physician order. This was evident for 2 (Resident #1 and # 2) out of 2 residents reviewed for pain during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the nursing staff failed to monitor behavior of a resident. This was evident for 3 (Resident #3, #6, and #45) out of 64 residents assessed for behavior monitoring during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure medications were held according to the physician orders. This was evident for 1 (Resident #43) out of 64 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, documentation review, and interview with resident and staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1) properly store medication by leaving a narcotic medication on the bedside table in the resident's room, and 2) keep treatment carts locked when unattended and discard medications/biologicals when expired. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 40) of 29 residents bedroom areas observed, and 1 of 3 nursing units observed during random observations made during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to arrange for dental services within a reasonable time frame following the dental consultant recommendation. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents (#45) selected for dental complaints during this recertification/complaint survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards. This was evident for 3 (Resident #67, #75, and #108) of 64 residents reviewed during an recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure timely updates to the residents' hospice status. This was evident for 1 (Resident #9) of 2 residents reviewed for hospice care during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide education regarding the risks versus benefits of the pneumonia vaccine. This was evident for 2 out of 5 residents (Resident #1 and #5) whose immunization records were reviewed during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents' COVID-19 vaccination status was properly monitored. This was evident for one (Resident #5) of five residents whose COVID-19 vaccination records were reviewed during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodations for 1.) Resident #40 as evidenced by failing to have a language line communication system. The Language Line allows the Service Provider to access a translator by phone to communicate with people who speak a language other than English and 2). failed to ensure call bells were within reach of the Residents (#25 and #26). This was evident for 3 (Residents #40, #25 and #26) out of 66 residents reviewed during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Resident Council meeting minutes and interview with members of the resident council it was determined that the facility staff failed to consistently update the residents with responses to their concerns. This was evident for 6 out of the 18 months reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that Advanced Directives were offered and/or available in the clinical record for 5 out of the 66 residents reviewed as part of the survey sample (Residents #16, #32, #41, #42, and #43).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents' rooms were maintained in a homelike environment by failing to conduct routine assessments of the resident room and completing repairs when needed. This was found to be evident while touring the facility during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined the facility staff failed to provide written notice for emergency transfers to the resident's responsible party and/or the Ombudsman. This was found to be evident for 5 out of 66 (Resident #27, #75, #14, #12 and #47) residents reviewed for a facility-initiated transfer during the investigation of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a copy of the facility bed hold policy was provided to the resident's responsible party. This was evident for 2 (#12 and #47) out of the 66 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure care plan meetings were held, failed to update care plans for residents and failed to ensure the full interdisciplinary team including residents and/or their responsible parties were invited to the quarterly care plan meetings. This was evident for 5 (Resident #2, #16, #41, #7, and #27) out of 66 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a cord used to turn on/off a call light was in working condition to allow the residents a means of directly contacting staff. This was evident for 5 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 17, 41, 56, and Resident #27's room) toured as part of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the physician of a resident's abnormal radiology results in a timely manner (Resident #47). This was evident for 1 of 66 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the facility's investigation of a facility reported incident and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to protect a resident from abuse. (Resident #41). This was evident for 1 out of 17 residents selected for review for abuse during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview and review of facility statements, it was determined the facility staff failed to report an incident of alleged abuse to the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) and local law enforcement as required (Resident #186). This was evident for 1 out of 17 residents reviewed for abuse during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to accurately code the resident's status on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (Resident #7 and #23). This was evident for 2 out of 66 residents selected for review during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide the resident or resident representative with a summary of their baseline care plan upon admission. This was evident for 1 of 6 (Resident #27) residents reviewed during the complaint investigations.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to develop comprehensive care plans for residents (Resident #38 and #32). This was evident for 2 out of 66 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to document or assess the care for a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line in accordance with generally accepted standards of nursing practice for Resident #235. This was evident in 1 of 66 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to follow physician's orders in the care of a resident (Resident #187). This was evident for 1 out of 66 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to provide treatment/services to prevent/heal pressures ulcers for a resident (Resident #7). This is evident for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to ensure that a resident's environment was reasonably free of hazards (Resident #20 and # 133). This was evident for 2 of 66 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to thoroughly assess the need for pain medication and medicate Resident #63. This was evident for 1 of 66 residents selected for review of pain assessment during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to display the results of the annual recertification survey and plan of correction in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, and legal representatives. This was evident in 1 of 1 survey results book posted in the facility.
26 fire safety citations on file: 3 on July 17, 2026, 7 on July 24, 2025, 16 on September 21, 2022.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.42 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.36 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.05 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.91 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.15 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 65.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 71.4% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.96 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 3.57 on weekdays and 3.05 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 21.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.66 in April to June 2025 to 3.42 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 | 3.42 | 0.36 | 3.57 | 3.05 | 21.8% | 0 of 90 | 90 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.28 | 0.28 | 3.41 | 2.95 | 23.5% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.56 | 0.43 | 3.68 | 3.25 | 19.8% | 0 of 92 | 100 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.66 | 0.51 | 3.76 | 3.40 | 19.4% | 0 of 91 | 96 |
| 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 | 12.4 | 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 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.0 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.4 | 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 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Homewood's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.6% 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. 94 eligible stays.
11.8% 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. 104 eligible stays.
8.0% 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. 54 eligible stays.
69.4% 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. 36 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. 58 residents counted.
1.0% 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. 58 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Maryland98.1% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 23 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: 6000 BELLONA 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 56 West Frederick 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 | |
| Rizqui, Ibrahim | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/13/2021 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Sowa, Ronilyn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/15/2024 | |
| 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 | |
| Rizqui, Ibrahim | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/13/2021 | |
| Sowa, Ronilyn | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/15/2024 |
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.