1 Eastern Boulevard, Essex, MD 21221 · Baltimore County · (410) 574-1400
238 certified beds, about 223 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215203 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 12, 2026, inspectors cited 17 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 47 health citations since October 2021 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 3.50 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.49 of those hours.
35.1% 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 47 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate linen for residents. This was evident for two ([NAME] and Swan) out of four units observed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain infection prevention and control regarding enhanced barrier precautions while providing high contact care. This was evident for four (Resident #12, #24, #147 & #223) out of seven residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on family interview, record review, and Staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide quarterly statements to the Resident's Representative. This was evident for one (Resident #7) out of two residents reviewed for personal funds.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility investigation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident remained free from verbal abuse. This deficient practice was identified for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for abuse during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days after the assessment reference date. This was evident for one (Resident #185) out of three residents reviewed for resident assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to transmit MDS assessments within 14 days of completing the assessment. This was evident for one (Resident #185) out of three residents reviewed for resident assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document health status in the admission Minimum Data Set. This was evident for one (Resident # 50) out of 35 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan to address identified pressure injuries. This was evident for one (Resident #75) out of two residents reviewed for pressure injury during the facility's recertification/complaint survey. The findings Include:On 06/11/2026 at 8:18 AM, review of Resident #75's clinical record revealed multiple pressure injuries. Review of wound assessments and treatment documentation revealed ongoing wound care interventions. However, review of the resident's care plan failed to reveal a care plan addressing the resident's identified pressure injuries, including the location of the pressure injuries, associated risks, goals, and individualized interventions. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure participation of a resident in the care planning process. This was evident for one (Resident #12) out of three residents reviewed for care plan during the facility's recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were administered within the facility's established medication administration time frames. This was evident for three (Resident #18, #231 & #252) out of seven residents reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary services. This was evident for one (Resident #253) out of five residents reviewed for ADLS (activities of daily living).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident had a call bell near reach. This was evident for one (Resident #8) out of eight residents reviewed for call bells during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement care plan interventions to report a significant weight loss to the physician and Registered Dietitian. This was evident for one (Resident #2) out of two residents reviewed for nutrition and hydration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to be consistent with professional standards regarding supplemental oxygen requirement. This was found to be evident for two (Resident #15 and #147) out of four residents reviewed for Respiratory Care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received an annual dental visit. This was evident for two (Resident #13 and #85) out of four residents reviewed for dental services.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the clinical record for one (Resident #119) of five residents reviewed for advance directives during the facility's recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility's designated hospice interdisciplinary team member failed to ensure documentation regarding hospice care was available and communicated with the facility staff. This was evident for one (Resident #147) out of to residents reviewed for hospice.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to serve residents meals that matched their tickets. This was evident for seven (Resident #74, #115, #146, #171, #193, #203 & #251) out of thirty-three residents observed during dining.
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 6 (Residents #3, #1, #9, #4, #12, #10) of 16 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of complaint, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify a resident's responsible party (RP) when there was a change in condition in a resident's medical status. This was evident for 1 (Resident #11) of 16 residents reviewed during a 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. This was evident for 2 (Resident #13 and #11) of 16 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to keep the environment free from accident hazards. This was evident for 1 of 6 nursing units observed during a complaint survey.
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 1 (Resident #11) of 16 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely administer medications as ordered. This was evident for 1 (Resident #86) of 85 residents reviewed for medications administration involving 22 medications administered during 6 days in May 2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to promote care in a manner that maintains dignity and respect for residents who required staff assistance with their meals. This was found to be evident during observations of a breakfast and lunch dining experience for 5 (Residents #64, #115, #10, #120, #78) of 85 residents reviewed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and an interview with a resident, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean homelike environment. This was evident for 1 room out of 18 rooms observed during the initial tour of two second floor nursing units.
Inspectors wrote2. MD00204713 was reviewed on 5/30/25 at 1:15 PM for allegations of abuse to Resident #232. According to the investigation and a statement provided by staff, Environmental Staff (EVS) #18, who indicated that she overheard the resident say to GNA (#17), you are hurting me and the GNA went on to use [explicative] at the resident. Further review of the investigation revealed that the allegation could not be verified or refuted based on the timeline of events, interviews with the resident and other residents and no one else reported hearing cursing from the resident room. There was a possibility that Staff # 18 voiced the concern as retaliation towards Staff #17 due to the staff making a complaint about Staff #18 the previous day. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notification of transfer to the resident and resident representative or provide written notification of bedhold, and failed to ensure the local ombudsman was notified of transfer to the hospital. This was evident for 1 (Resident #9) out of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission. This was evident for 1 (Resident #84) of 4 residents reviewed for care planning during survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2 Residents (#73,# 471) out of 85 residents reviewed during survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews, and review of the medical record it was determined that the facility failed to 1) ensure residents were offered the opportunity to participate in their care planning process by holding timely quarterly care plan meetings for 1 (Resident # 21) of 2 residents reviewed for care planning, and 2) develop and revise a comprehensive, person-centered care plans with measurable objectives and timetables to address the resident needs for 1 (Resident #130) of 2 residents reviewed for pressure injuries during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of administrative records and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility staff failed to properly turn and position a resident while providing care. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident # 232) of 18 residents reviewed for abuse allegations during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement timely, appropriate, and individualized interventions to prevent and treat a pressure injury. This is evident for 1 (Resident #130) of 2 residents reviewed with pressure wounds.
Inspectors wrote2. Food temperatures above 41 degrees Fahrenheit (for cold foods) and below 135 degrees Farhenheit (for hot foods) allow the rapid growth of pathogenic microorganisms that can cause foodborne illness. On 06.01.25 at 12:30 PM the surveyor observed the kitchenette/galley serving station in the Seagull activity room/dining room. There was no dietary aide present in the galley preparation area. The surveyor observed a bin of small containers/cups of apricots and applesauce that were not refrigerated on the second shelf next to the hot water/steam serving table. The outside of the containers were warm to touch. The surveyor observed the 40 residents in the Seagull dining room waiting to be served their lunch meal. Six geriatric nursing assistants (GNAs) were present in the dining room. [...]
Inspectors wrote3. Review of Resident #192's MAR on 6/3/25 at 1:30 PM revealed an order for Rexulti 3 mg(milligrams) one tablet by mouth one time a day; however, there was no indication for the use of this medication for the resident. Rexulti is a medication used to treat several mental conditions. On 6/3/25 at 1:00 PM, the surveyor shared the above concerns with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated all medications should have reason documented as to why the resident is prescribed it. 4. Resident #163's medical record was reviewed on 6/2/25 at 12:05 PM for pressure ulcers. During a review of the residents' Change Of Condition (COC) form dated 11/24/24 it indicated the resident was noted to have a new open area to right heel. Further review of the medical record revealed a care plan for risk for alteration in skin integrity that was initiated 11/11/24. [...]
Inspectors wrote3. On 6/2/25 at 1:25 PM the surveyor observed the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #40 in the dining room on Seagull Unit take a white napkin from her uniform pocket, wipe her nose and then put the napkin back into her uniform pocket. Staff #40 then proceeded to pick up a resident's tray in the dining room and began to cut up the items on the tray without sanitizing and washing her hands. After surveyor intervention the LPN #40 discarded the tray, and another tray was prepared for the resident. LPN #40 stated she knows she should have washed and or sanitized her hands prior to picking up the resident's tray. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary environment by ensuring that dirty trash was emptied and removed, clothes bins containing dirty clothes were emptied and the utility room and Dining Room floors were cleaned. This was evident when observations were made on the Seagull Unit during the facility's survey.
Inspectors wroteAL Riverview F574 Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to post contact information for the Ombudsman and provide the correct contact information to file a complaint with the Office of Healthcare Quality.
Inspectors wroteAL Riverview F577 Based on observation and interviews, the facility staff failed to have the survey results book readily accessible for review by residents, family members, and legal representatives of residents in areas of the facility that are prominent and accessible to the public. This was found to be evident during observations made during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteAL Riverview F584 Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure the environment was maintained in a manner that was safe, comfortable, and homelike. This was evidenced for 4 of 46 resident rooms and in 1of 2 communal dining areas observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of medication administration, interview with facility staff, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff followed professional standards of medication administration when Certified Medical Assistant (CMA) #6 failed to document all medications that were administered to Resident #24 at the time that they were administered. This was evident for 5 of 26 medications observed during the medication administration observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview with facility staff, and review of facility policies, it was determined that the facility failed to have a medication error rate of less than 5% during the medication observation facility task. This was evident for 4 of 26 medications administered during the observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications requiring refrigeration were stored at the correct temperature, that medication was not kept in storage beyond its expiration date, and that narcotic lock boxes in medication refrigerators were secured to the inside of the refrigerator and could not be removed. This was evident for 1 of 3 medication refrigerators and 3 of 3 medication rooms reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was prepared and stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observations and interview with facility staff and residents, the facility staff failed to protect and value resident's private space (residents #22, #45, #72 & #110). This was evident for 4 out of 75 residents reviewed during a recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's investigative report, record review, observation, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of resident abuse nor notify law enforcement when a resident reported sexual and physical abuse. This was evident for 2 of 13 residents (Resident #133, #125) reviewed for abuse during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of narcotic change of shift counts, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that narcotic medications were consistently reconciled by two nurses at change of shift. This was evident for 1 (Egret, 400's unit) of 3 nursing units reviewed for accuracy and completeness of controlled medication storage and documentation.
16 fire safety citations on file: 1 on June 12, 2026, 6 on June 3, 2025, 2 on February 14, 2024, 7 on October 27, 2021.
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) | 3.50 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.49 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.20 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.01 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.99 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 35.1% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 21.1% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.20 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 3.62 on weekdays and 3.20 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 24.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.54 in April to June 2025 to 3.50 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 | 3.50 | 0.49 | 3.62 | 3.20 | 24.4% | 0 of 90 | 223 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.57 | 0.51 | 3.68 | 3.29 | 18.6% | 0 of 92 | 219 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.58 | 0.50 | 3.70 | 3.25 | 19.5% | 0 of 92 | 215 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.54 | 0.49 | 3.67 | 3.21 | 18.4% | 0 of 91 | 223 |
| 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 | 23.5 | 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 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 32.8 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.6 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.8 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Riverview's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (61.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
61.9% this home
Better than 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. 548 eligible stays.
13.2% 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. 592 eligible stays.
6.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Maryland: 5 better, 6 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 324 eligible stays.
79.9% this home
Median of homes: Maryland61.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 194 residents counted.
0.3% 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. 351 residents counted.
0.7% 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. 351 residents counted.
95.0% 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. 182 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: RIVERVIEW 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riverview Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/01/2019 |
| Riverview As Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| Riverview Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| The Js Trust Fbo Nieces and Nephew | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 08/01/2019 | |
| Dew, Diana | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/01/2019 | |
| Stern, Samuel | Corporate officer | 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.