7001 Charles Street, Towson, MD 21204 · Baltimore County · (410) 337-8313
179 certified beds, about 163 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1970
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215077 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 25, 2026, inspectors cited 22 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 70 health citations since July 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 3.40 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
59.9% 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 70 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to dispose of furniture and refuse in a sealed container. This was evident in 1 of 1 refuse disposal areas observed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the clean linen was in a clean area without dust. This was evident in 1 of 1 laundry areas observed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of an investigation and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to complete a through investigation of an allegation of abuse. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1 (#1) of 1 resident allegation investigation reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the laundry area maintenance was completed, this was evident in 1 of 1 laundry areas observed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure food maintained appropriate temperature in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was evident during the surveyor's review of the kitchen task during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to: 1) Ensure professional standards for food service safety were followed. 2) Maintain a sanitary kitchen environment: Ensure thorough cleaning of kitchen, equipment, and areas where food is served and stored. Ensure surfaces used for food preparation, storage and serving were clean and in good repair. 3) Ensure the kitchen environment was pest free. 4) Ensure furniture for dining was clean and in good repair. This was evident during the surveyor's kitchen and dining tour during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure the garbage area was maintained in sanitary condition. This was evident during the surveyor's initial tour of the facility for 1 out of 1 trash area observed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to adhere to infection control practices and guidelines. This was found to be evident during observations made throughout the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure essential kitchen equipment needed to manage functions of food service was maintained in safe operating condition. This was evident for: 1 out of 2 steamer compartments, 1 out of 1 single door reach in refrigerator, 1 out of 2 convection oven compartments, and 1 out of 6 steam table wells observed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure onsite emergency water supply. This was evident during the surveyor's tour of the emergency water storage area during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure effective management of pest control. This was evident for all floors of the facility during surveyor review of environment during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a Resident (#97) had the capability of safe self administration of a medication and failed to ensure the interdisciplinary team was aware of the Resident's self administration of the medication. This was evident for 1 (#97) out of 2 Residents reviewed for quality of care during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident received showers according to personal preference. This was evident for 1 (Resident #104) out of 1 resident reviewed for preference in shower schedule.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a resident with a quarterly statement for a personal funds account. This was evident for 1 (#104) out of 2 residents reviewed for a personal funds account.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with resident's and facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Resident's room furniture and the resident's environment was clean and well maintained for residents residing in the facility . This was evident during the surveyor's initial tour of the facility for two Resident rooms (#208, and #210) located on the second floor, observations of Resident # 19 Room and for Room # 309 during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with staff and a resident representative, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the grievance process for a resident and resident representative. This was evident for 1 (Resident #180) of 2 residents reviewed for grievances during the annual recertification and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure Resident #4's personal funds was appropriately managed. This was evident for 1 out of 2 Residents reviewed for personal funds during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide written information regarding transfers to the hospital and discharge to; the resident and/or the resident's responsible party (RP), and the local Ombudsman. This was evident for 6 (# 94, # 181, # 179, # 12, #140, # 7) of 6 residents reviewed for transfer / discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident minimum data set assessments were completed timely. This was evident for 2 out of 2 Residents (#34 and #17) reviewed for the Resident Assessment task during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to administer medication according to professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 (Resident #126) out of 7 residents observed for medication administration during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to Ensure a resident had their wound dressing changed according to physician's order for 1 (#104) of 1 resident wound dressing observation, and to ensure medications were administered as ordered by the physician for 1 (#140) of 1 resident reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident was kept safe and free from accidents after observing the resident to be in distress. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #2) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents and observations made during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, observation, and clinical record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's pain management was adequately addressed. This was evident for 1 (#104) out of 1 resident being reviewed for wound care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a pain medication was administered according to the physician's order. This was evident for 1 (#104) out 1 resident reviewed for pain medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident received routine and follow-up dental care. This was evident for 2 residents (#9 and # 180) out of 2 residents reviewed for dental care during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with the accepted professional standards and practices for complete and accurate records. This was evident in 3 (#94, #97, #165) of the 51 residents' records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable environment for residents on 2 of 2 units observed (Somerset and Arcadia Memory Care). This had the potential to affect all residents residing on these units.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interviews, record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident #1) receiving medications late.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, failed to seal gaps in the walls, and prevent rodents from entering residents rooms for six residents (R20, R18, R6, R15, R16, and R14) residing on the third floor. The facility census was 164.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide respiratory care in accordance with professional standards for four of four residents (Residents (R) 18, R22, R120 and R357) reviewed for respiratory care out of 32 sampled residents. This failure had the potential for the residents to be subjected to contaminated respiratory equipment and to not receive proper airflow.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents received appropriate supervision during medication administration for three of 161 residents (Resident (R) 122, 97, and 103) reviewed during initial tour. This failure could result in unwarranted medication side effects and mismanaged medical conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a grievance was adequately documented and investigated to ensure satisfactory resolution for one of 32 sampled residents (Resident (R) 97). This failure had the potential to cause dissatisfaction with care, feelings of helplessness, and fear for R97.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an ongoing program of meaningful activities was designed for one of one resident (Resident (R) 113) reviewed for activities out 32 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to contribute to feelings of boredom, depression, loneliness, or helplessness for R113.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a splint was applied to address a hand contracture for one of five residents (Resident (R) 71) reviewed for limited range of motion out of 32 sampled residents. This failure had the potential to lead to increased contracture, pain, or skin breakdown for the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn for two of four sample residents (Resident (R) 107 and R205) reviewed for transmission-based or enhanced barrier precautions out of 32 sampled residents. These failures have the potential to contribute to spread of infection among staff and residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interview and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure interventions for a care plan focus were revised with interventions to address residents' medication refusals. This was evident for 1 (#MD00209998) of 1 complaint reviewed. A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care. It should be revised to reflect the resident's plan of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure the safety of a Resident by not providing adequate supervision as evidenced by the fact that the Resident fell and was found on the floor 5 times in a 4-month period and making rounds. This was evident for 1 (# MD00210090) of 1 complaint reviewed. Care plan - is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess, and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident ' s care.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a complaint, interviews, and documentation review, it was determined the facility failed to have an effective pest control program as evidenced by numerous reports and observation of mice throughout the facility. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of abuse within 2 hours of the allegation and an injury of unknown origin within 24 hours to the regulatory agency, the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ). This was evident for 3(#10, #8, #2) residents involved in 14 facility reported incidents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility administrative records, facility investigations, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate incidents of alleged abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property. This was evident for 4 (#10, #8, #2, #30) residents involved in 14 facility reported incidents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of a complaint, medical record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to timely implement wound care orders for a resident with a scrotal ulcer. This was evident for 1 (Resident #35) of 28 complaints reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, policy review, and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure the physician wrote, dated, and signed progress notes at each resident's visit. This was evident for 1 (Resident #24) of 28 complaints reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of complaint MD00977840, interviews, and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that pain and anxiety medications were available to a resident. This was evident for 1 (#18) of 28 complaints reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with family and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete, accurate and up to date related to residents' status in the facility. This was evident during the review of 2 of 38 (#22 and #24) residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to honor a resident's choices (Resident #157) ,the facility staff failed to provide showers to Resident (#24), the facility nursing staff failed to 1. know what days of the week a resident was to receive a shower and 2. follow a resident's choice to receive a shower as indicated in the medical record for Resident (#101). This was evident for 3 of 9 residents reviewed for choices during this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. This was evident for 14 resident rooms and 1 shower room and 1 resident lounge.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain the environment for Residents (#16 and #67) free from potential accidents. This was evident for 2 of 2 resident selected for review of accidents and 2 of 67 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to administer dietary supplements to Residents (#115, #16, #136, #105, #148, #17, #147 and #117) and failed to obtain weekly weights on (Resident #148) as ordered. This was evident for 8 out of 14 residents selected for review of nutrition and 8 out of 67 residents selected for review during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of medication pass and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to obtain a medication error rate less than 5% (Residents #77, and #368). This includes 2 out of 4 residents observed for medication pass, 5 errors out of 27 opportunities with a medication error rate of 18.52%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that medications were properly secured, thoroughly labeled with residents' name, and dated when the medication was open. This was evident for 2 of 6 medication carts observed during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide Residents (#23 and #148) with the most dignified existence. This was evident for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for dignity during the survey process and 2 of 67 residents selected for review.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident complaint and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to have the facility complaint/compliment forms readily available to wheelchair dependent Resident (#18) and the facility failed to ensure that Residents (#9 and #145) had access to their nurse call button. This was evident for 3 of 3 resident's reviewed for accommodation of needs during this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident complaint, reviews of administrative records including a resident's personal funds records, individual resident account statements, transaction reports, transaction receipts, and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain a system that ensures a full and complete accounting of a resident's personal monies entrusted to this facility. This was evident for 1 (Resident #18) of 2 residents reviewed for personal property during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident complaint, review of a medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to immediately notify a resident's physician regarding the resident's refusal of taking his/her anti-seizure medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident #117) of 2 residents reviewed for notification during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide the resident and their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission to the facility. This was evident for 1 (Resident #366) of 4 resident reviewed for care plan participation and 1 of 67 residents reviewed during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive activities care plan for residents (#316, #20). The facility failed to follow the care plan to provide eating assistance for a resident (#157). This was evident for 3 of 67 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan for the use of an anticoagulant medication for a resident (#117) and the facility staff failed to implement interventions for Resident (#16) as noted on a care plan. This was evident for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for care planning during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to obtain a podiatry consultation as ordered for Resident (#24), the facility staff failed to initiate a medication and a Iodosorb dressing in a timley manner for Resident (#135) and the facility staff failed to administer medications in a timely manner per physician's orders for Resident (#91). This was evident for 3 of 67 residents reviewed during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident complaint, reviews of a medical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow up with an audiologist office since March 2019 to obtain a resident's hearing aids for Resident (#39) and failed to obtain an ophthalmology consultation as ordered by the physician for Resident (#148). This was evident for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for vision/hearing during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to provide ambulatory services to Resident (#23) to maintain mobility. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents selected for range of motion during the survey process and 1 of 67 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to document the administered of pain medication and failed to assess the need for pain medication and thoroughly monitor the effectiveness. This was true for Resident (#135), 1 out of the 7 residents reviewed for pain management during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and documentation review it was determined that facility staff failed to provide evidence that the facility's Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA), have been deemed competent to provide resident care independently. This is true for 1 GNA (Staff #22) employed by this facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the consultant pharmacist failed to conduct a thorough medical record review to identify and bring to the facility staff's attention Resident (#100) receiving Nystatin cream for 2 months and the facility failed to conduct thorough medication regimen reviews and identify that Resident (#72) was receiving an antipsychotic. This was evident for 2 of 6 residents selected for review of un-necessary medications and 2 of 67 residents selected for review during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Resident (#100) was free from an un-necessary medication. This was evident for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for un-necessary medication and 1 of 67 residents reviewed during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased upon staff interview and medical record review it was determined the facility staff failed to obtain a dental consultation as ordered for Resident (#5). This was evident for 1 of 4 residents selected for review of dental services and 1 of 67 resident selected for review during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews of facility staff, it was determined that food service employees failed to ensure that sanitary practices were followed, equipment was maintained and safe food handling practices were followed to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain medical records in the most accurate form for Residents(#157, #158 ). This was evident for 2 of 67 residents reviewed in the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a safe, sanitary environment to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection by failing to post an isolation sign on Resident's (#135 and #367) door and to have the necessary equipment to alert visitors, residents, and staff to see the nurse before entering the room. This was true for 2 out of 3 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in safe operating condition. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation it was determined the facility failed to post the required nursing staffing data on the Daily Staffing Schedule. The facility also failed to post the Daily Staffing Schedule in a prominent place and readily accessible to visitors and residents. This was evident on 1 out of 4 nursing units.
42 fire safety citations on file: 2 on April 24, 2026, 13 on February 25, 2026, 24 on October 24, 2024, 3 on July 18, 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) | 3.40 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.05 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.77 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.22 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 59.9% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 35.7% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.05 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 3.55 on weekdays and 3.05 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 35.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.53 in April to June 2025 to 3.40 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 | 3.40 | 0.41 | 3.55 | 3.05 | 35.3% | 0 of 90 | 163 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.53 | 0.42 | 3.62 | 3.28 | 31.1% | 0 of 92 | 153 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.44 | 0.44 | 3.54 | 3.19 | 19.6% | 0 of 92 | 156 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.53 | 0.49 | 3.62 | 3.30 | 22.8% | 0 of 91 | 162 |
| 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 | 24.0 | 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 | 3.9 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.7 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.4 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.6 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.5 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.3 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Autumn Lake Healthcare at Ruxton's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.8% 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. 176 eligible stays.
13.7% 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. 221 eligible stays.
6.1% 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. 121 eligible stays.
77.9% 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. 113 residents counted.
0.6% 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. 175 residents counted.
2.5% 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. 175 residents counted.
98.0% 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. 51 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: 7001 CHARLES STREET 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7001 Charles Street Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2023 |
| As Family Sd Holdings LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 58% | 06/01/2023 |
| 7001 Charles Street Propco LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Golub, Tzvi | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/15/2023 | |
| Schwartz, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Stern, Rochel | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 05/14/2025 | |
| 7001 Charles Street Propco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Accurate Staffing LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2023 | |
| As Family Sd Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2023 | |
| M Meisels Family Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Golub, Tzvi | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/15/2023 | |
| Khan, Sunniya | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 |
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.