Home / Maryland / Silver Spring
2700 Barker Street, Silver Spring, MD 20910 · Montgomery County · (301) 565-0300
138 certified beds, about 127 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2002
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215338 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 5, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 60 health citations since October 2019 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.39 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.43 of those hours.
27.5% 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 60 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to accurately code the residents' status in the Minimum Data Set Assessment. This was evident for 4 (Resident #138, Resident #1, Resident #4 and Resident #10) out of 8 residents reviewed for Accuracy of Assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain refrigerated food temperatures at a safe level. This was found to be evident for the 3rd floor nourishment room refrigerator during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, facility documentation review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's requested shower preference was honored. That was found to be evident in 1 (Resident #11) of 3 residents reviewed for choices during the annual survey. The findings Include: On 7/24/2025 at 10:30 AM, Resident #11 was interviewed by the survey team. When questioned by the surveyor if they had received a shower this week, Resident #11 shook their head no. When the resident was asked if they would like to receive showers, the resident nodded their head and said yes. On 7/28/2025 at 10:30 AM, Resident #11's medical record was reviewed by the surveyor. The resident had an order for bi-weekly showers during day shift on Mondays and Thursdays. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interviews, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to record and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances. This was evident for 1 out of 1 resident reviewed for personal funds.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent a resident with cognitive impairment from leaving the facility unsupervised. This was evident for 1 (#143) of 3 residents reviewed for elopement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to properly assess and monitor a resident's wander guard. This was evident for 1 (Resident #39) of 2 residents reviewed for elopement during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accommodate resident's food preferences and intolerances. This was evident for 1 (Resident #133) of 3 residents reviewed for food choices during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment for a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #126) of 8 residents reviewed for safe, sanitary and functional environment during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure that handrails were securely attached to the wall. This was evident for 1 of 1 unit observed.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on record review, resident interview, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper bookkeeping techniques as evidenced by not giving the resident or retaining a copy of a receipt of a transaction. This was evident for 1 (Resident #44) out of 1 resident reviewed for personal funds.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility investigations, resident medical records, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents remained free of abuse. This was true for 3 (Resident #104, Resident #21 and Resident #146) of 11 residents reviewed for abuse during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interviews, and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to protect the resident from misappropriation of property. This was evident for 1 out of 1 resident reviewed for personal funds.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) report an injury of unknown origin to the state agency in a timely manner, and 2) ensure that incidents of alleged abuse were reported to the state agency in a timely manner. This was found to be evident in 3 (Incident 335642, Incident 335653and Complaint 335655) of 29 intakes investigated during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview of facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a full-time qualified dietetic service supervisor for oversight of food preparation and daily kitchen operation and a certified Registered Dietician for nutrition management. This has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pertinent documentation, observation, and interviews with resident and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were served meals according to a predetermined menu that incorporated resident preferences. This was evident for 5 (Resident # 112, Resident # 49, Resident # 25, Resident #2, Resident #59) out of 6 residents on 5 of the 6 units at the facility reviewed for food during a survey. This has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a home-like environment for residents. This was evident for 2 of 2 nursing units reviewed for the environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify residents or their representatives in writing of the reason for transfer and document that notification in the medical record. This was evident for 3 (#104, #142, #96) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately documented. This was evident for 3 (Resident #79, #24, #7) of 47 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with residents, review of resident medical records, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were provided with summaries of their baseline care plans including a list of their medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident #112) of 3 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were developed and implemented. This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #59, #129, #172) out of 47 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to evaluate and revise a resident's care plan to reflect accurate and current interventions. This was evident for 2 (#93, #7) of 47 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interview, and observation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide an activities program to meet the needs and preferences of residents. This was evident for 4 (#59, #84, #7, #422) of 5 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wrote3) On 10/16/23 at 9:38 AM, a medical record review for Resident # 84 noted that a monthly pharmacy review was completed on 4/23/23 with a recommendation to review an antidepressant for dose reduction. On 10/17/23 at 1:42 PM, a review of Resident #84's medical record showed that a consulting psychiatric Nurse Practitioner reviewed and signed the pharmacy recommendation on 6/6/23. The attending Physician saw resident # 84 on 4/30/23, 6/15/23, 6/16/23, 6/28/23, and 6/30/23. However, the review failed to show that the attending Physician for Resident # 84 had reviewed or responded to the pharmacy recommendation. On 10/17/23 at 2:19 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated that the psychiatric Nurse Practitioner reviewed and signed all the pharmacy recommendations for psychotropic medication use. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to reveal evidence that the resident or resident representative was informed of their right to formulate an advanced directive. This was evident for 2 (#3, #104) of 5 residents reviewed for advance directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to notify a resident's attending provider of a change in condition. This was evident for 1 (# 34) of 4 residents observed during medication administration and 1(#2) of 3 residents reviewed for Nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to report an injury of unknow origin to the State Agency, the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ), immediately but not later than 2 hours of the allegation. This was evident for 1 (#24) of 13 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate when a vulnerable resident who was assessed, and care planned as an elopement risk, left the facility grounds unattended for an unknown amount of time. This was evident for 1 (#136) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the resident and the resident representative written notice of the bed hold policy. This was evident for 1 (Resident #96) out of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to complete, within 14 days, a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment. This was evident for 1 (#84) of 3 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a positive Level I PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) screen was evaluated by the designated state-authority through the Level II PASARR process, and approved for admission to the nursing facility. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #88) out of two residents reviewed for PASARR.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide services consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent the development of pressure ulcers and promote healing of existing pressure ulcers/injuries by 1) failing to follow practitioners orders by failing to accurately transcribe and implement wound treatment orders as prescribed, and 2) failing to ensure that a low air mattress was implemented when recommended. This was evident for 1 (#129) of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent a vulnerable resident who was assessed, and care planned as an elopement risk, from leaving the facility grounds unattended for an unknown amount of time. This was evident for 1 (#136) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident medical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to promptly address a resident's significant weight loss. This was evident for 1 (Resident #132) of 6 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to residents receiving tube feedings. This was evident for 2 (Resident #96, #80) of 2 residents reviewed for tube feeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pertinent documentation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) training to their nursing staff prior to the staff providing care to residents receiving PD treatment. This was evident for 2 (Resident #138 and # 130) out of 4 residents reviewed for dialysis during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility staff failed to: 1) ensure that orders for medication included an accurate route of administration, 2) ensure orders had adequate parameters to indicate when to administer as needed medicationsfor constipation, 3) ensure that residents were not given as-needed pain medication outside of a medication's parameters, and 4) ensure a resident received medication according to an attending physician's orders. This was evident for 2 (#79, #112) of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 1 (#34) out of 4 residents observed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff 1) failed to ensure that a psychotropic medication prescribed as needed was limited to 14 days and failed to ensure a resident who received psychotropic medication was monitored for behaviors and side effects. This was evident for 1 (#) of 1 residents reviewed for hospice, and 1 (#79) of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent cross contamination of cookware and ensure that clean cookware was separated from dirty work areas and protected from splashes. This has the potential to affect all the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed ensure that a resident's current wishes related to life-sustaining treatment were up to date by failing to void previous MOLST (Maryland Medical Order for Life Sustaining Treatment) forms when a new MOLST was created. This was evident for 1 (#104) of 5 residents reviewed for advanced directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, interviews with staff and review of resident and facility records, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective quality assessment and assurance program by failing to implement plans of action to correct quality deficiencies identified during the prior recertification survey. This was evident during the survey process and review of the Quality Assurance Program.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that staff failed to store resident care equipment and supplies in a sanitary manner as evidenced by failing to store linens so as to prevent the spread of infection facility and failed to keep the door separating the clean from the soiled area of the laundry room closed to prevent cross contamination. This was evident in 22 resident rooms observed during the initial resident sample observations and evident in 2 out of 2 observations of the laundry area. .
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to have the call device accessible to the residents while in their room. This was evident for 2 (Resident #7, #25) of 2 residents reviewed for call system functionality and accessibility.
Inspectors wroteBased on pertinent document review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) working at the facility received 12 hours of continuing education annually. This was evident for 2 GNAs (GNA# 53, GNA # 54) out of 3 GNAs reviewed for staffing during a 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 for 4 of 30 residents selected for review during the survey (#44, #51, #81, #88).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, surveyor observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow physician orders in medication administration for resident #88. This finding was evident for 1 of 30 residents reviewed for the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, surveyor observations, review of the facility's policy and procedure, and interviews with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a systematic approach was identified with the hazards and/or risks consistently addressed for residents who smoke. This finding was evident for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for Smoking. (#86, #23, #19, and #51)
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical records and facility staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to adequately provide ongoing assessment of resident #5's condition and monitoring for complications before and after dialysis treatments. This finding was evident in 1 of 4 residents selected for review of dialysis care during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to document a rational to continue an as needed anti anxiety medication beyond 14 days and document the justification for continued use of psychotropic medications. This finding was evident for 3 of 8 residents selected for the Unnecessary Medication/Behavior/Mood review. (#58, #92, #104)
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, review of the facility's smoking policy and procedure, surveyor observations and interviews with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently implement their smoking policy for residents who smoke. This finding was evident for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for smoking. (#86, #23, #19, #51)
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observations of dining service to residents and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment during meal services. This finding was evident for 1 of 2 main dining rooms within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of administrative documents and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to assist a resident with filing a grievance and promptly follow up on the grievance. This finding was evident for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for personal property concerns during the survey.(#123)
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of clinical records and interviews with staff and residents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notification of a resident's transfer or discharge to the resident or representative. This was evident for 2 of 5 residents selected for review of hospitalization during this survey. (#123 and #27)
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interviews with facility staff and residents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the facility bed hold policy for residents that were transferred to the hospital. This was evident for 2 of 5 residents selected for review of hospitalization during the survey. (#123 and #27)
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical records and facility staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive resident centered care plan to address residents' medical conditions. This finding was evident for 2 of 30 residents selected for review during the survey. (#51 and #68).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical records and interview of resident #115 and facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to review a resident's plan of care quarterly. This finding was evident in 1 of 30 residents selected for review during the survey. (#115).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observations, record review, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to assess resident #81 for risk of entrapment and obtain informed consent from resident #81's responsible party prior to the installation of 1/2 length bed rails. This finding was evident for 1 of 2 (#81) residents reviewed for restraint use during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, review of facility's consultant psychiatric services contract/addendum and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that necessary behavioral health services were in place for resident #104. This finding was evident for 1 of 8 residents selected for the Unnecessary Medication/Behavior/Mood review.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, observation, and facility staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. This finding was evident in 1 of 2 residents selected for review of infections not UTI related care area during the survey. (#227).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of facility-wide assessment record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to review and update the assessment when there was a personnel change. This finding was evident for 1 of 1 facility assessment record reviewed during the annual survey. On 10-25-19 at 2:30 PM, surveyor review of the facility assessment record revealed names of personnel in the following positions: Administrator, Director of nursing and Medical Director. Upon further review, surveyor could not identify these personnel as part of current facility staff. On 10-25-19 at 2:36 PM, surveyor interview with the administrator revealed that the identified personnel were previous staff who no longer worked with the facility. There was no evidence that the administrator reviewed and updated the facility assessment when there was a change in personnel as required. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and interviews with residents, the resident's responsible party and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation in residents' clinical records. This finding was evident for 4 of 30 residents reviewed during the survey. (#100, #79, #23, #70)
27 fire safety citations on file: 12 on August 5, 2025, 11 on November 3, 2023, 4 on October 25, 2019.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.39 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.43 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.11 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.81 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.15 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 27.5% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 18.8% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.58 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 3.50 on weekdays and 3.11 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.64 in April to June 2025 to 3.39 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 | 3.39 | 0.43 | 3.50 | 3.11 | 1.4% | 0 of 90 | 127 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.55 | 0.50 | 3.66 | 3.27 | 2.9% | 0 of 92 | 121 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.61 | 0.59 | 3.75 | 3.25 | 5.7% | 0 of 92 | 123 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.64 | 0.60 | 3.81 | 3.22 | 7.1% | 0 of 91 | 123 |
| 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 | 15.1 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 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 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.0 | 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 | 7.0 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.4 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.9 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Oakview's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.3% 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. 78 eligible stays.
8.8% 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. 88 eligible stays.
7.7% 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. 48 eligible stays.
87.1% 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. 31 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. 62 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 62 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. 18 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: OAKVIEW OPERATOR, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oakview Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/01/2019 |
| Oakriver Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 50% | 08/01/2019 |
| Oakview As Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| Oakview SNF Realty LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| Everitt, Forrest | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Kaba, Suela | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2019 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2019 | |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| Oakriver Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| Oakview As Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| Oakview SNF Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| Everitt, Forrest | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Kaba, Suela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2019 | |
| Stern, Aryeh | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2019 |
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.