2525 West Belvedere Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215 · Baltimore City County · (410) 367-9100
135 certified beds, about 122 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2002
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215340 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 10, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 80 health citations since September 2021, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $341,978 in the last three years; the largest was $341,978, and the latest is dated July 7, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.27 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.58 of those hours.
33.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
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 80 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident received the recommended durable medical equipment (DME) prior to discharge home. This was evident for 1 (Resident #4) out of 1 reviewed for discharge planning during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all areas were in good repair. This was evident on all the units in the facility during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to send a copy of the notice of discharge to the representative of the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman. This was evident during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to label oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle with date of change to indicate maintenance of respiratory equipment for proper hygiene and safety. This was evident of 5 (Resident #11, #49, #65, #90, and #134) of 7 residents observed for respiratory care during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that advance directives were discussed with residents and/or responsible representatives and/or a copy of an advance directive was in the medical record. This was evident for 2 (Resident #75 and Resident # 6) out of 3 residents reviewed for advanced directives during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the Physician that ordered labs were not obtained. This was evident for 1 (Resident #75) of 41 residents reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to implement recommended wound care treatments based on wound consults. This was evident for 1 (Resident #8) of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcer/injury during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was provided with splints based on the recommendations of the rehabilitation staff. This was evident for 1 (Resident #10) of 3 Residents reviewed for position and mobility during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate pain management. This was evident for 1 (Resident #75) out of 2 residents reviewed for pain during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to respond to recommendations made by consulting pharmacists in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that it was free of medication error rates of five percent or greater. This was evident during observation of med pass on 2 of the 2 units in the facility during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) appropriately store drugs for Resident #121 and, 2) label drugs and biologicals in accordance with currently accepted professional standards. This was evident for 2 of 2 nursing units observed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Dental services. This was evident for 3 (Resident #4, #12, and #8) of 4 residents reviewed for dental services during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determine that the facility staff failed to 1) follow the facility infection prevention policy to operate on a systematic and organized date-driven method track and trend for in-house infections effective and timely, and 2) maintain/use laundry dryers according to the manufacture's instructions for use. The second one was found to be evident of 3 out of 3 dryers observed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility investigation documents, it was determined that the facility failed to effectively communicate with the Substance Abuse Disorder (SUD) team, the physician and direct care staff regarding residents in order to develop and maintain a comprehensive plan of care to address residents substance abuse disorders and treatment plans. This was evident for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #56) reviewed during the complaint survey. As a result of this deficient practice, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified on [DATE] at 12:15 PM and an IJ summary tool was provided to the facility. The removal plan was accepted by OHCQ on [DATE] at 9:20 PM after 5 initial plans were submitted to the surveyors at 3:40 PM, 4:45 PM, 7:45 PM, 7:48 PM and 8:45 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to use the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) process to track, review, and analyze residents at risk for illicit drug use/overdoses. This was evident during review of the facility's QAPI process after 11 residents (#56, #8, #4, #45, #31, #11, #33, #32, #7, #36 and #37) were reported by the facility to the state agency for suspected drug overdoses in the past 13 months and has the potential to affect all residents with Substance Use Disorders. As a result of this deficient practice, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 7/2/2025 at 10:00 AM and an IJ summary tool was provided to the facility. The removal plan was accepted by OHCQ on 7/2/25 at 9:20 PM after 5 initial plans were submitted to the surveyors at 3:40 PM, 4:45 PM, 7:45 PM, 7:48 PM and 8:45 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to assess residents for the ability to self administer medication. This was evident during random observations when medications were found at the bedside of 2 residents (Resident #61 and #62).
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to notify the attending physician when the resident was refusing their medications. This was evident during the review of 1 of 3 residents administered Narcan (Resident #11)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview; it was determined that the facility failed to protect a resident (Resident #43) from misappropriation of personal funds by failing to provide the resident with way to secure the resident's valuables from theft. This was evident for 1 of 67 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff 1) failed to provide written notice to the resident and resident representative of the transfer to a local hospital for evaluation on 12/17/24. (Resident # 38). This was evident in 1 of 67 residents reviewed during a complaint survey; and 2) failed to ensure that hospital transfers were documented in the residents' medical records and that appropriate information was communicated to the receiving health care institution. This was evident for 1 (Resident #14) of 67 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, the facility failed to have individualized care plans in place for Resident #32, #36, and #37 who have SUD (substance use disorder). This was evident for 3 out of 5 residents reviewed for care planning who had SUD.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to intervene when a resident that was admitted with a known history of substance use disorder was showing signs and symptoms of potential use and abuse of those substances. This was evident during the review of 1 of 3 residents administered Narcan (Resident #11); and 2) failed to ensure hospital instructions for surgical wound care were addressed upon the resident's admission to the facility. This was evident for 1 (Resident #14) of 10 residents reviewed for neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of medical records, facility reported incidents, Controlled Medication Utilization Record sheets, Medication Administration Record (MAR), and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently document address residents' pain, ensure prescribed medications had adequate parameters, ensure non-pharmacological interventions were attempted prior to the administration of narcotic pain medication, document assessment of pain and administration of an as-needed (PRN) pain medication on the electronic MAR and further monitor the resident's pain level and efficacy of the medication. This was evident for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for pain Resident #48, #5, #16
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a radiology report was timely accessible to the attending physician. This was evident during the review of 1 of 3 fractures (Resident #13)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that the resident's appointed decision maker was provided education and opportunity to consent or decline the COVID-19 vaccine booster on the resident's behalf. This was evident for 1 (#21) of 67 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of a recent facility discharge practice and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a resident and or their representative (RP) with the proper paper documentation of the facilities bed hold policy. This was evident for 1 of 1 (#1) reviewed for hospitalization during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews with facility staff, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of an incidents submitted to the state agency. This was evident for 4 (Resident #91, #2, #268, and #270) of 12 facility reported incidents reviewed with allegations of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to implement comprehensive person-centered care plans. This deficient practice was evident in 4 (#97, #101, #102, and #270) of 8 resident records reviewed for comprehensive care plans during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to update a resident's plan of care after an antibiotic was completed. This occurred for 1 (Resident #95) of 10 residents reviewed for care plans during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with resident family and facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to administer a medication as ordered by the physician. This was evident for 1 of 15 residents (#134) reviewed records.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined 1.) what the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner Consultant documented in the resident's progress notes did not accurately reflect what was in residents' medical records (Residents #7 and #35) and 2.) the facility failed to ensure that physicians place orders in the electronic health record (EHR) and follow up on labs for the purpose of assessing and documenting resident conditions and treatments accurately (Resident #61). This was evident for 3 of 114 residents (#7, #35, #61) reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5% during the medication administration facility task. This was evident for 8 of 26 opportunities for error observed during the medication administration facility task, resulting in an error percentage of 30.77%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to properly store and monitor medications and medical supplies and dispose of medications according to professional standards. This was evident in 3 out of 3 medication storage rooms observed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical records for a residents. This was evident for 3 of 16 residents (Resident# 2, #97, and #122) reviewed for complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a dignified existence to a resident evidenced by a resident wearing a soiled jacket multiple times. This deficient practice was evident in 1 (#5) of 4 residents assessed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to accommodate a resident with a known visual impairment with large print documents for the resident to read. This deficient practice was evident in 1(#101) of 1 resident assessed for visual accommodations during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to keep the facility in a comfortable homelike environment. This deficient practice was evidenced on Unit D during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of a transfer/discharge of a resident along with the reason for the transfer. This was evident for 1 (#35) of 1 resident reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident representative in writing of the bed-hold policy upon transfer of the resident to an acute care facility. This was evident for 1 resident of 5 residents (Resident # 35) reviewed during the annual Survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview with facility staff and residents, it was determined that the facility staff failed to: 1) administer medications as ordered by the physician for residents (#30, #95). This was evident for 2 of 5 residents selected for a follow-up medication chart review; and 2) follow professional standards by providing a treatment without a physician's order (Res. #102) and failing to monitor a resident's weight as ordered (Resident #123). This deficient practice was evident in 2 (#102 and #123) of 5 resident records reviewed for standards of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide activities designed to support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident. This was evident for 2 (Resident #31 and Resident #50) out of 3 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews, and facility investigation documents, and other pertain information it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to residents (#508 and #59). This was evident in 2 of 2 residents reviewed for elopement during this survey. The findings Include: 1. Review of Resident #508's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in February of 2022, with diagnosis that included schizoaffective disorder and ambulatory dysfunction. Review of the Facility Reported Incident MD00179418 on 11/13/23 at 3 pm for Resident #508, revealed on the morning of 6/23/23, at approximately 7:51am it was discovered that Resident # 508 was located outside the facility premises a few houses down from the facility sitting on a neighbor's step. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to follow a physician's order. This was evident for 1 (Resident #31) of 3 residents reviewed for urinary catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a physician supervised the care of a resident as evidenced by the physician failing to evaluate if a resident admitted to the facility with a foley catheter still required to have the foley catheter in place. This was evident for 1 (#95) of 2 residents reviewed for foley catheters during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the physician reviewed and addressed irregularities identified by the clinical pharmacist in a timely manner. This was evident for 3 (Resident #74, #83 and #61) of 8 residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility staff failed to clearly establish a rationale for the administration of three Blood Coagulation medications for Resident #74. This was evident for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to follow prescribed dietary orders for a resident. This was evident for 1 resident (#99) out of 11 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to discard spoiled perishable food and outdated dry storage items. This deficient practice was discovered during the kitchen tour during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to dispose the garbage and refuse properly as evidenced by garbage on the ground and the inability to close the dumpster lid. This deficient practice was discovered during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to correctly store and clean medical equipment to prevent infection. This was evident in 1 out of 4 clean utility rooms observed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to ensure that resident rooms were maintained in a homelike manner and kept clean and comfortable. This was found to be evident during observations made of 3 resident rooms observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to ensure that resident environment is functional and comfortable, clean and well maintained. This was found to be evident during observations made of 1 exit door and 2 shower rooms observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate ventilation in the kitchen as evidenced by condensation dropping from the ceiling when the steamer was used. This deficient practice was discovered during the facility's survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide a written notice for emergency transfers to the residents, residents representative and the ombudsman. This was found to be evident for 4 out of 5 (#61, #84, #86, #90) residents reviewed for a facility-initiated transfer during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a resident had a complete and accurate Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR). This was evident for 2 (#61 and #73) out of the 61 residents that were reviewed as part of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview with resident and facility staff and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to 1. be able to identify all residents that are identified as smokers in the courtyard, 2. provide a safe smoking environment for residents. 3, complete assessments related to a resident's smoking status and therefore needs related to smoking. This was evident for 4 of 4 (#6, #51, #104 and #112 residents observed and reviewed for safe smoking.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview residents and staff and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with needed Social Work services and assistance to attain their highest wellbeing. This was evident during the review of 2 of 61 residents (# 34 and #6 ) reviewed during the annual survey. MOLST Maryland order for Life Sustatining Treatments is a portable and enduring medical order form covering options for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other life-sustaining treatments. The medical orders are based on a patient ' s wishes about medical treatments.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview and a test tray from the kitchen, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure palatable meals are served.
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 review of pertinent facility documents and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have an updated facility assessment that included information relevant to the services provided and the needs of the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staff roster and staff interview, it was determined that the facility had a bed capacity of 135 and did not employ a qualified social worker from March 2021 to the present on a full-time basis. This deficient practice was found during an annual survey and has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and policy review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to adhere to appropriate standard and transmission based precautions to help prevent the spread of infection. This was found to be true for 1 (LPN#16) of 2 licensed staff members observed on one unit in the facility during the Medication Administration Observation conducted during the survey. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on tour of the facility, observation, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility did not have a designated location that would accomodate all residents for dining.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility maintained an adequate amount of potable emergency water available. This was evident during the facilities annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a handrail was secured to the wall. This was evident for 1 resident area observed during the survey. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors on the unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that residents received at least two showers each week as requested and that the facility failed to provide the opportunity for residents to participate in resident council meetings. This was evident for 1(#39) out of 4 residents reviewed for choices as part of the survey process and was found to be true for 9 (# 27, #26, #86, #24 #72, #76, #32, #68, and #31) of 61 residents observed for resident council and grievance process during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to display the results of the most recent annual recertification survey and plan of correction in a place readily accessible to residents, family members and legal representatives of residents. This was evident for 1 of 1 survey results book posted in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident admitted with a history of abuse of a vulnerable individual had their whereabouts and interactions monitored. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6).out of 61 residents reviewed as part of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a comprehensive care plan that included smoking interventions. This was found to be true for 2 of 61 residents (#95 and #104) reviewed for care plan accuracy during an annual survey. Care Plan - This term refers to a document which is the written plan of how a long-term care facility will provide care. This plan is based on resident health assessments, preferences, and goals.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to update Resident # 104's care plan to address actual skin impairment (pressure ulcers). This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcer/ injury. A Pressure Ulcer is any lesion caused by unrelieved pressure that damages the underlying tissue(s). Although friction & shear are not primary causes of pressure ulcers, friction and shear are important contributing factors to the development of pressure ulcers. Pressure (decubitus) ulcer stages are as follows: Stage I - Intact skin that is red or discolored. Stage II - A partial-thickness loss of skin involving the outer and inner layers of the skin Stage III- the sore gets worse and extends into the tissue beneath the skin, forming a small crater. Fat may show in the sore, but not muscle, tendon, or bone. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure discharge plans were made for residents that were given thirty-day discharge notices. This was evident for 2 (#61 and #86) out of 61 residents reviewed as part of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, observation, and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's activities of daily living (ADL) was carried out (Resident #39). This was evident for 1 out of the 61 residents reviewed as part of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to; 1) to perform a preventive physician order for turning and repositioning for (Resident # 104), and 2) consistently obtain weights for the resident as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident who had the need for new glasses received new glasses or was seen by an audiologist for routine services. This was evident for 1 out of 4 residents reviewed for communication and sensory issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, review of the medical record and an interview with facility staff it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that the oxygen tubing and humidification bottles were date labeled to ensure timely replacement to minimize risk of infections. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents observed (resident #75).
Inspectors wroteBased on multiple observations, interviews with resident and staff and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor the administration of a resident receiving a nicotine patch and cessation of smoking. This was evident for 1 of 2 (#51) residents reviewed observed during smoking times identified with nicotine patches.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a resident was free of unnecessary medications (#79). This was evident for 1 out of 1 resident reviewed for unnecessary medications. Medical record reviewed for Resident #79 revealed on 7/28/2021 the physician ordered: clonazepam Give 0.5 mg by mouth at bedtime for Anxiety (Clonazepam is a benzodiazepine medication for the treatment of panic disorder). Anxiety is a nervous disorder characterized by a state of excessive uneasiness and apprehension, typically with compulsive behavior or panic attacks and can be displayed by various behaviors or verbalizations; Trazodone HCl Tablet 50 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Depression with Insomnia was also ordered by the physician (Trazodone is a psychotropic medication used to treat depression). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medication administration observation, medical record review, and staff interview, It was determined the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent for 3 (#72, # 84, and # 85) of 7 residents observed during 36 medication administration opportunities resulted in an error rate of 11.11%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide dental services within a reasonable time frame following a physician's dental consult request. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 3 residents (Resident #104) reviewed for dental.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain a medical record in the most accurate form for a resident (# 113 and 52). This was evident for 2(# 113 and 52) of 61 residents reviewed in the survey process.
32 fire safety citations on file: 13 on December 10, 2025, 12 on November 22, 2023, 7 on September 14, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 7, 2025 | Fine | $341,978 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.27 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.58 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.15 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.05 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.63 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 33.0% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 38.9% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.63 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 3.31 on weekdays and 3.15 on weekends, 5% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.39 in April to June 2025 to 3.27 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 | 3.27 | 0.58 | 3.31 | 3.15 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 122 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.35 | 0.59 | 3.45 | 3.09 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 119 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.49 | 0.62 | 3.57 | 3.27 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 122 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.39 | 0.61 | 3.48 | 3.17 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 120 |
| 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 | 18.3 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.8 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.3 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.7 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.0 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Blue Point Healthcare Center'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. 59 eligible stays.
11.2% 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. 60 eligible stays.
6.4% 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. 34 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.
1.7% this home
Median of homes: Maryland0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 58 residents counted.
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. 58 residents counted.
93.1% 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. 29 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: Legal Business Name Not Available.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership data not available |
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.