Home / Maryland / Burtonsville
3415 Greencastle Road, Burtonsville, MD 20866 · Montgomery County · (240) 970-5600
145 certified beds, about 127 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1998
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215315 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 7, 2026, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 41 health citations since October 2020, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $11,381 in the last three years; the largest was $11,381, and the latest is dated July 1, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.63 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.64 of those hours.
38.7% 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that addressed a resident's fall risk status for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation, medical record review and interviews, it was determined the facility staff failed to treat a resident with dignity and respect. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) of 6 residents reviewed during a compliant survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of complaint 2997160, medical record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to notify the resident's physician/nurse practitioner when the resident had a change in vital signs that had the potential for physician intervention. This was evident for 1 (Resident #2) of 7 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of complaint 2997160, medical record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards. This was evident for 1 (Resident #2) of 7 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify residents receiving Medicaid benefits to spend down when their personal account reached within $200 of the SSI resource limit. It was evident for 8 residents (Resident #12, Resident #48, Resident #54, Resident #57, Resident #62, Resident #104, Resident #108, Resident #129) out of 73 residents reviewed for personal funds.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to code the residents' status accurately on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This was evident for 4 ( Resident #2, Resident #31 Resident #98 and Resident #129) of 6 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to educate and provide COVID-19 immunizations to the residents. This was evident for 5 (Resident #28, #57, #48, #39, #12) out of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services to maintain communication abilities to a resident with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). This was evident for 1 (Resident #98) out of 1 resident reviewed for communication.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #139) out of 6 reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure appropriate provision and documentation of notice of hospital transfer and bed hold policy to residents' responsible party (RP). This was evident for or 1(Resident #7) out of 3 residents reviewed for discharge process during the facility's recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to refer the residents with a serious mental disorder for a level II assessment. This was evident for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #9) out of 3 residents reviewed for PASARR.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise the interdisciplinary care plans to reveal accurate interventions. This was evident for 1 (Resident #129) out of 2 residents reviewed for care plans during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain professional standards of practice related to oxygen orders. This was evident for 1 (Resident #49) out of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident had access to their call bell. This was evident for 1 (Resident #49) out of 35 observations made on call bells.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews, and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received oxygen therapy in accordance with physician orders for 1 (Resident #45) of 2 residents reviewed for oxygen use. The facility also failed to develop a care plan to address oxygen therapy needs and failed to ensure that residents were not connected to empty oxygen tanks.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to ensure that medication was available for administration as ordered and 2) failed to administer medications on time. This was evident for 1 (Resident #31) out of 5 residents reviewed for medication administration and 1 (Resident #144) out of 3 residents reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide physical therapy services as ordered. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) out of 6 residents reviewed for therapy services during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff adhered to enhanced barrier precautions when providing care to residents. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 87) out of 6 residents reviewed for infection control practices during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on administrative and medical record review, observations and interviews with facility staff and family it was determined that the facility failed to prevent a cognitively impaired resident who is at risk for wandering from exiting the facility unsupervised. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed during the facility's complaint survey. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #1. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following this incident. The facility's plan and action were verified during this survey; therefore, this deficiency will be cited as past noncompliance. The date of correction was 6/27/25.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to address residents with significant weight loss. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident # 122) of 3 residents reviewed for weight loss during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a dignified dining room experience. This was evident for 1 (Resident #12) of 1 resident observed during the dinner dining observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment. This was evident for 2 out 2 clean utility rooms observed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteReview of medical records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a GI (gastrointestinal) consultation as requested by the physicians for resident # 60. This was evident for 1 of 9 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that facility staff failed to address the nutritional needs of a resident who had a known significant weight loss. This deficient practice was evident for 1 (#89) of 1 resident reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, observation, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the physician documented the medical history and treatment plan related to residents with significant weight loss. This was evident to be true for 2 (#48, #89) of 6 residents reviewed for excessive weight loss during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation it was determined the facility failed to provide palatable food at an appetizing temperature. This was evident for 3 out of 3 hot food items checked on the test tray. This failure had the potential to affect all residents receiving meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, interviews, and observations, the facility failed to honor the residents' food preferences. This was evident to be true for 3 ( #13, #17, and #92) out of 10 residents observed dining during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure sanitary practices were followed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, and maintain a clean working environment, during the survey
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to document if interventions were put in place to address a resident with a significant weight loss, document a significant change in the resident's medical condition, failed to notify the physician, and interdisciplinary team. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident # 122, #89) of 5 residents reviewed for weight loss during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to adhere to infection control practices. This was evident for 1 (Resident #15) of 1 resident observed during the dinner dining observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to provide supervision to prevent an accident (Resident #9). This was evident for 1 of 37 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, surveyor observations and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive plan of care for residents. This finding was evident for 2 of 27 residents reviewed during the survey (Resident #44 and #64).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, surveyor observations and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure consistent behavior monitoring of residents' use of psychotropic medications. This finding was evident for 3 of 6 residents selected during the Unnecessary Medication Review and Mood/ Behavior Reviews (Resident #44, #4, #64).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review clinical record, observation, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an environment that promotes resident respect and dignity. This finding was evident in 1 of 27 residents (Resident #1) selected for this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to notify Resident #47's responsible party of the resident's weight loss. This finding was evident for 1 of 27 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, review of the Beneficiary Protection Notifications and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) and Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNFABN). This finding was evident for 2 of 3 residents selected for the Beneficiary Protection Notification review (Residents #8 and #15).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, surveyor observation and interview with resident #31 and facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to revise the comprehensive plan of care for Resident #31. This finding was evident for 1 of 27 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure standards of nursing practice. This finding was evident in 2 of 27 residents reviewed during the survey(Resident #64 and #28).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow physician's orders. This finding was evident in 1 of 27 residents reviewed for quality of care during the survey (Resident #22).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, review of clinical records, facility policy and procedures and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure infection control practices to prevent development and transmission of communicable disease and infections. This finding was identified during the observation of 3 of 3 resident during glucose testing (Resident #4, #64, and #188).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to store and prepare, and serve food under sanitary conditions. This finding was evident in the facility's kitchen during the surveyor's initial tour.
14 fire safety citations on file: 7 on April 7, 2026, 3 on February 19, 2025, 4 on October 20, 2020.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 1, 2025 | Fine | $11,381 |
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) | 3.63 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.64 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.33 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.87 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.12 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 38.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 47.1% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.19 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 3.75 on weekdays and 3.33 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 18.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.80 in April to June 2025 to 3.63 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 | 3.63 | 0.64 | 3.75 | 3.33 | 18.0% | 0 of 90 | 127 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.64 | 0.62 | 3.78 | 3.30 | 17.5% | 0 of 92 | 131 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.74 | 0.58 | 3.83 | 3.51 | 19.9% | 0 of 92 | 128 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.80 | 0.48 | 3.92 | 3.50 | 26.4% | 0 of 91 | 129 |
| 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 | 30.1 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 32.0 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.2 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.6 | 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 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Oak Manor's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.1% 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. 348 eligible stays.
15.2% 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. 362 eligible stays.
10.0% this home
Worse than 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. 210 eligible stays.
67.7% 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. 124 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. 252 residents counted.
2.1% 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. 251 residents counted.
92.9% this home
Median of homes: Maryland98.1% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 98 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: 3415 GREENCASTLE ROAD 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3415 Greencastle Road Holdco LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| As Family Md4 Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| M Meisels Family Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| 3415 Greencastle Road Propco LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| Kyler, Benjamin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/26/2024 | |
| Sabapathi, Ramesh | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2022 | |
| 3415 Greencastle Road Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| 3415 Greencastle Road Propco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| As Family Md4 Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2022 | |
| M Meisels Family Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2021 | |
| Kyler, Benjamin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/26/2024 | |
| Sabapathi, Ramesh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 |
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.