205 Armstrong Street, Centreville, MD 21617 · Queen Annes County · (410) 758-2323
120 certified beds, about 111 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 1978
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215114 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 12, 2026, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 36 health citations since May 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $55,564 in the last three years; the largest was $55,564, and the latest is dated July 12, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.59 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.86 of those hours.
51.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Complete Care, an affiliated group of 85 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 36 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean and homelike environment. This was evident in 1 (C) of 2 shower rooms, 6 (14, 24, 52, 54, 55, and 57) out of 12 resident rooms, and the C/D Nourishment Room observed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on kitchen observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food storage complied with professional standards of food safety. This practice had the potential to impact all residents eating food prepared in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a functional and sanitary environment. This was evident for 1 (C) out of 4 shower rooms observed during the recertification survey. On 01/07/2026 at 9:35 AM, the surveyors observed two drains covered in multicolored hair and a metal panel coming off of the bathroom wall. Unit Manager #10 and the Maintenance Regional Director acknowledged the concerns and stated the shower rooms are scheduled for renovation. On 01/07/2026 at 10:11 AM, the surveyors observed a dirty and stained floor with trash in the C/D Nourishment Room. On 01/07/2026 at 11:37 AM, The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), Maintenance Regional Director, and Maintenance Supervisor acknowledged the concerns in the C/D Nourishment Room. [...]
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clean and operational ventilation systems, thereby impairing proper airflow throughout the premises. This deficiency was observed in 4 of the 5 unit ventilation systems reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled:Number of residents cited:Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide a Resident's Representative the right to be involved in informed consent process. This was found evident in 1 (Resident #16) of 4 residents reviewed for advanced directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to attempt a recommended gradual dose reduction for a psychotropic medication and/or failed to document contraindication rationale for why gradual dose reduction was not attempted. This was found evident in 1 (Resident #30) out of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in a Resident's medical record. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #5) of 33 residents reviewed in the survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled:Number of residents cited:Based on observation, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise a Resident's care plan after a Resident's situation changed. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #9) out of 1 Residents reviewed for hearing and vision during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for dependent residents. This was evident in 2 (Resident #66 and Resident #93) of 2 Residents reviewed for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, facility policy review, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards for oxygen administration. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #1) out of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care during the survey. Pulse oximeter - a device that uses a light source to analyze the light that passes through a finger and can determine the percentage of oxygen in the red blood cells, referred to as a pulse ox (pox) Peripheral Oxygen Saturation (SPO2). Nasal cannula- a medical device used to provide supplemental oxygen therapy to people who have lower oxygen levels.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices by keeping complete documentation. This was found evident in 2 (Resident #1 and #7) out of 33 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a sanitary environment in resident shared areas and the laundry room. This was evident in 2 (C, D) out of 4 shower rooms and the laundry room observed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, and facility policy review, the facility staff failed to recognize abuse and take action to prevent abuse to residents (Resident #921, #919, #77, #905, #912, #916, #927, #2, #17, #66, #303) reviewed for abuse for 11 out of a total sample of 21 residents. These actions resulted in the finding of an Immediate Jeopardy which was identified on 7/10/24 at 4:30 PM. An IJ summary tool was provided to the facility on 7/10/24 at 4:48 PM. The facility submitted a draft of their plan to remove the immediacy on 7/10/24 at 6:30 PM and it was not accepted. The facility submitted a 2nd draft of their plan to remove the immediacy on 7/10/24 at 7:36 PM and it was not accepted. The facility submitted a 3rd plan on 7/10/24 at 8:30 PM and it was accepted by the state agency at 8:40 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, review of the facility documentation, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure policies and procedures were implemented to address the facility's Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan and program, in which data was gathered, analyzed, developed, implemented, and re-evaluated to address adverse events related to potential deficient practice of abuse. This had the potential to affect all 105 residents residing in the facility at the time of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that grievances were promptly resolved and ensure all written grievance decisions included the date of the grievance, a summary of the resident's grievance, a summary of the findings, a statement as to whether the grievance was confirmed or not confirmed, corrective action taken as a result of the grievance, and the date the decision was issued. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure grievances voiced by residents during resident council were documented, investigated, resolved, and followed up on by the facility of 105 residents. This failure had the potential to cause further grievances to be unresolved for residents throughout the facility.
Inspectors wrote2) Review of R303's Face Sheet, located in the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Profile tab, revealed R303 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of a rib fracture and adjustment disorder with anxiety. Review of R303's admission MDS with an ARD of 06/24/24 located in the EMR under the MDS tab, revealed R303 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Per the MDS, the resident did not exhibit any behavior during the assessment period. During an interview on 07/08/24 at 11:50 PM, R303 stated sometimes at night she was told by staff to go to the bathroom in her brief. She stated it felt awful and she did not like doing it. She stated sometimes she also had a bowel movement in her brief which felt very uncomfortable. She stated she would wiggle in the chair. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to revise the care plan to include recommendations from the dental consult on 05/11/24 for one of 21 sample residents (Resident (R) 73) reviewed for care plan revision. This failure caused staff to be unaware of recommendations from the dentist or possible tooth pain for R73.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staffing information was posted daily and readily accessible to residents and visitors, during the first three days of the survey for 105 census residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure the resident's safety directly following an allegation of abuse and to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegation. Evident for 3 (#913, #921 and #928) and Evident for 4 (#905, #911, #919 and #924) of 26 residents reviewed for abuse allegations during a recertification and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to allow a resident the right to have a dignified existence by failing to be listening to the Resident during his/her care (Resident #911). This was evident for 1 of 73 residents reviewed during a complaint and recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents and/or resident representatives were afforded the right to file a grievance and receive a response regarding the action taken by the facility (Resident #906). This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed during a recertification and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to review and implement a care plan when there were noted changes in condition requiring further facility services and follow-up (Resident #905). This was evident for 1 of 73 residents reviewed during a complaint and recertification survey. A care plan is a comprehensive and personalized document that outlines the specific needs, goals, and preferences of a patient. Care plans also address the specific services needed to attain and maintain a resident's highest practicable well-being through focus, goals and interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that facility staff failed to provide activities of daily living (ADLs: bathing, personal hygiene, toileting, getting in and out of bed) for a resident who was dependent on them for care (Resident #906). This was evident for 1 (MD00186681) of 11 complaints reviewed during a recertification and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to 1) complete an admission nursing assessment thoroughly and therefore implement the correct interventions for a resident with known dementia history (Resident #917) This was evident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for elopement and 2) ensure that residents residing on their dementia care unit had activities to help them achieve their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. This was evident for 1 (#906) of 4 residents reviewed for dementia care.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of administrative records and staff interview, it was determined that the nursing administrative staff failed to 1) conduct a yearly performance review on the entire geriatric nursing assistant staff for the year of 2018, and 2) ensure that all geriatric nursing assistant (GNA) staff completed a minimum of 12 hours of education per year.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews of facility staff, it was determined that food service employees failed to ensure that sanitary 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 dining observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide residents with the most dignified existence with dining. This was evident for 2 (Resident #49 and #4) of 12 residents observed for dignity during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility staff failed to ensure that call bells were within reach for Resident (#47 and #68). This was evident for 2 of 53 residents selected for review during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to provide showers to Resident (#71). This was evident for 1 of 2 resident reviewed for choices during the annual survey process and 1 of 53 residents selected for review.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to 1) notify the physician of a finger stick above 400 as ordered by the physician for Resident (#47), 2) notify the physician of a delay in obtaining a stat x-ray for Resident (#71) and 3) notify a resident's physician and the facility nutritionist when a resident was identified with a significant weight loss for Resident #26. This was evident for 3 of 53 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of a medical record, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately evaluate and revise a resident nutritional care plan. This was evident for 1 (Resident #26) of 11 residents reviewed for nutrition during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide care to promote the highest well-being for Residents (#47 and #71). This was evident for 1 of 2 residents selected for review of skin conditions and 2 of 53 residents selected for review during the annual survey process for quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide an environment free from potential accidents for Residents (#5 and #47). This was evident for 2 of 53 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to document the heart rate and blood pressure for Resident #35 when the physician ordered parameters. This was evident for 1 of 6 residents selected for un-necessary medication review and 1 of 53 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation during tour of the facility's dumpster area, it was determined the facility staff failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation during a tour of E wing, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure hand rails were secured firmly to the wall. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents within the unit.
35 fire safety citations on file: 9 on January 12, 2026, 17 on July 12, 2024, 9 on May 24, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 12, 2024 | Fine | $55,564 |
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) | 3.59 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.33 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.23 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.50 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.06 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 3.70 on weekdays and 3.33 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 17.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.50 in April to June 2025 to 3.59 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 | 3.59 | 0.86 | 3.70 | 3.33 | 17.1% | 0 of 90 | 111 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.45 | 0.74 | 3.54 | 3.19 | 29.5% | 0 of 92 | 111 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.53 | 0.86 | 3.67 | 3.19 | 32.7% | 0 of 92 | 112 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.50 | 0.94 | 3.63 | 3.18 | 33.4% | 0 of 91 | 112 |
| 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.
| 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 | 17.1 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 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 | 3.1 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 23.0 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.8 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.3 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.1 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.7 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Complete Care at Corsica Hills LLC'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. 261 eligible stays.
12.9% 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. 272 eligible stays.
8.3% 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. 165 eligible stays.
71.4% 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. 28 residents counted.
2.1% 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. 141 residents counted.
4.1% this home
Median of homes: Maryland2.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 141 residents counted.
98.8% 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. 85 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: COMPLETE CARE AT CORSICA HILLS LLC. CMS links this home to Complete Care, a group of 85 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC Md Opcos LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2021 |
| PC Wta Opco Holdco LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2021 | |
| Sms 2021 Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 05/01/2021 | |
| Silverberg, Nisanel | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Silverberg, Nisanel | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Stein, Shalom | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2021 |
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.