512 Winifred Road, Cumberland, MD 21502 · Allegany County · (301) 724-6066
130 certified beds, about 100 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1978
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215055 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on October 9, 2025, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 59 health citations since February 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $97,777 in the last three years; the largest was $97,777, and the latest is dated September 25, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.29 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.69 of those hours.
23.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Communicare Health, an affiliated group of 110 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 59 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an effective discharge planning process. This was evident for 4 (#4, #8, #9, and #10) of 5 residents reviewed for discharges. On 5/21/26 at 2:05 PM, an immediate jeopardy (IJ) was declared for the facility's failure to ensure that post-discharge services were set up for Resident #4 prior to their discharge date . An IJ summary tool was provided to the facility. The facility submitted a plan for removal at 2:10 pm that was not accepted, the second draft submitted at 3:09 pm, the third submitted at 4:05 pm and fourth submitted at 4:44 pm were not accepted. On 5/21/26 at 5:55 PM, the facility staff submitted an IJ removal plan to the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) which was accepted, The IJ was removed on 5/22/26 at 3:30 PM after confirmation that the accepted plan had been fully executed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure that their resident's were treated with dignity and respect. This was evident for 1 (#2) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that staff failed to provide nursing services for residents that met the standards of professional practice. This was evident during 1 random observation of nursing unit 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide appropriate pain management for their residents. This was evident for 1 (#2) of 1 resident reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to implement an effective infection control policy and procedures. This was evident during 1 of 1 random observation during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a sanitary and homelike environment. This was found to be evident on two out of two nursing units in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and pertinent document review it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure that residents received the items listed on the meal ticket or specific items that were requested by the residents. This was found to be evident for 2 residents (Resident #70 and #15) during random dining observations and one (Resident #2) during an interview with the resident council.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene; and maintain a sanitary environment in a manner that minimizes the potential development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. This was found to be evident for three (Resident # 2, #17 and #115) out of 53 residents reviewed; and two of three medication storage rooms observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteDuring observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident had the right to a dignified existence and communication. This was found to be evident during one (Resident #7) out of two investigations regarding resident dignity conducted during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents' personal possessions were treated with respect and safeguarded from interference by other residents. This was evident for one (Resident #37) of two residents reviewed for wandering behavior during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews, observation and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to make grievance information and the process of how to file a grievance readily available to staff and residents. This was evident for 1 (Resident #77) out of 1 resident reviewed for personal property during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to code the resident's status accurately on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This was evident for one (Resident #22) of two residents reviewed for positioning and mobility during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide quality of care for their residents. This was evident for one (Resident #125) of three residents reviewed for nutrition and one (Resident #3) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that prior to installation of bed rails appropriate alternatives were attempted, that residents were assessed for the risk of entrapment, and that informed consent was obtained, and failed to ensure re-evaluation for the continued use of the bed rails. This was found to be evident for two (Resident #41 and #88) out of two residents reviewed for bed rail usage.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the physician failed to review the hospital records for a resident who was newly admitted to the facility to ensure continuity of care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #125) of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure regularly scheduled medication was re-ordered and delivered in a timely manner; and failed to ensure staff accessed interim supply of medication when needed. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #3) out of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure resident treatment carts were locked when unattended; ensure insulin pens were dated upon opening and discarded according to manufacturer guidelines; and ensure that insulin pens were stored in a manner that prevented potential cross-contamination. This was evident during two random observation of treatment carts; 1 of 3 medication carts and 2 out of 3 medication storage rooms observed during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure only one active version of a resident's orders for life-sustaining treatment was located in the medical record. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #3) out of four residents reviewed for advance directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to document that the resident either received the pneumococcal and influenza vaccine(s) or did not receive the vaccine(s) due to medical contraindications, previous vaccination, or refusal. This was evident for 1 (Resident #117) out 5 residents reviewed for immunizations during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to document that the resident either received the Covid vaccine or did not receive the vaccine due to medical contraindications, previous vaccination, or refusal. This was evident for 1 (Resident #117) out 5 residents reviewed for immunizations during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide an environment for residents which was free from abuse. The deficient practice resulted in a harm for Resident #74, #256, and #34. This was evident for 4 (Resident #74, #256, #7, and #34) of 16 residents investigated for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to provide the supervision needed to prevent resident to resident altercations which resulted in harm. This was evident for 1(#74) of 7 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to document what preparation and orientation was given to residents to ensure an orderly transfer to an acute care facility. This was evident for 4 (#87, #76, #73, and #80) ) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 5 (Resident #45, #74, #80, #52, and #56) of 45 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement a person-centered care plan. This was evident of 3 (Resident #41, #74, and #58) of 45 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that interdisciplinary team care plan meetings were scheduled to review and revise care plans after each Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This was evident for 3 (Resident #52, #56, and #70) out of 3 residents reviewed for care plan timing and revision.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pertinent documents and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to document a grievance and investigate the loss of a hearing aid as reported by a resident's family. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 247) out of 8 Residents reviewed for abuse during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on pertinent document review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a policy regarding the consent for sexual activity in residents with impaired cognition. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 16) out of 16 residents reviewed for abuse during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse within the mandated time frame. This was evident for 2 (Resident #251, #248) out of 16 residents investigated for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and review of facility reported incident (FRI) investigation documentation, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse. This was evident for 1 (MD00189938) of 4 facility reported incidents reviewed for resident-to-resident altercations.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to document the information that was provided to the acute care facility to ensure a safe and effective transition of care when a resident was transferred there emergently. This was evident for 1 (#76) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to notify resident/resident representative in writing of a transfer/discharge of a resident along with the reason for the transfer. This was evident for 1 (#73) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and medical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of the bed hold policy upon transfer to an acute care facility. This was evident for 1 (#73) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide a resident and/or a resident's representative with a summary of the baseline care plan that included a summary of the resident's medications. This was evident for 2 (#87, #76) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an ongoing program to support the resident in their choice of activities. This was evident in 3 (Resident #45, #87, and #70) out of 4 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report a resident's vital signs that were not within normal limits (WNL) to the resident's physician. This was evident for 1 (Resident #255) out of 5 residents reviewed for neglect during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to manage a resident's pain effectively. This was evident for 1 (#249) of 5 residents reviewed for neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff Interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a physician reviewed the resident's total program of care at each visit. This was evident for 1 (#87) of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a registered nurse (RN) was providing services for at least 8 consecutive hours a day during a 24 hour period. This was evident for 1 out of the 14 days reviewed for RN scheduling.
Inspectors wrote2) On 9/08/23 at 12:10 PM, a medical record review for Resident #74 revealed an attending physician's order written on 5/7/23 for antihypertensive medication at bedtime for high blood pressure. The physician's order stated to check blood pressure and hold the medication for systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than or equal to 110 mmHg (millimeters of mercury). Systolic blood pressure is the top blood pressure and refers to the amount of pressure in the arteries during the heart muscle contraction. A review of Resident #74's medication administration records from 5/7/23 to 9/5/23 showed that Resident #74's SBP were not monitored daily. A review of the vital signs section of the facility's medical record documented blood pressure for Resident # 74; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were kept in locked compartments. This was found to be evident on 1 (2nd floor unit) of 2 nursing units.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and pertinent document review, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food to prevent foodborne illness. This was evident in 1 Kitchen refrigerator out of 2, and 1 resident refreshment refrigerator out of 2, reviewed during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records. This was evident for 1 (resident #16) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to hire a qualified employee to provide social services for their residents. This was evident for 1 (Staff #7) of 1 staff reviewed in the Social Services Department.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were offered the pneumococcal vaccine. This was evident in 1 (Resident #87) out of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations during the survey process.
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 6 (#95, 49, #46, #91, #20, #74) of 8 residents reviewed that were transferred to an acute care facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and review of medical records, it was determined that the facility failed to evaluate, and revise care plans as resident care needs became apparent or changed over time. This was evident for 10 (#46, #49, #91, #8, #53, #74, #3, #96, #59, #84) of 23 residents in the final sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and interviews with the facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that effective quality assessment and assurance performance improvement interventions were implemented to address deficiencies from a previous survey. This was evident during review of the Quality Assurance program.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and staff interview during facility environmental observations, 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 observed on both levels of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to document what preparation and orientation was given to residents to ensure an orderly transfer to an acute care facility. This was evident for 5 (#95, #49, #46, #91, #20) of 8 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interview, observation and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans with measurable goals. This was evident for 8 (#91, #95, #46, #74, #3, #53, #56, #6 ) of 23 residents in the final sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, It was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regimen was free from an unnecessary psychotropic medication by 1) failing to adequately monitor a resident for behavior, side effects or adverse consequences related to psychotropic medication use and 2) failing to ensure that a psychotropic medication prescribed as needed was limited to 14 days. This was evident for 3 (#59, #56, #84) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to keep updated and accurate medical records. This was evident for 7 (#6, #51, #49, #91, #53, #13, #59) of 23 residents in the final sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 2 (#17, #69) of 2 residents reviewed for Resident Assessment, 1 (#91) of 2 residents reviewed for communication/sensory, and for 1 (#59) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interview and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to follow up with the resident to ensure that the resident received the services necessary to maintain adequate hearing. This was evident for 1 (#91) of 2 residents reviewed for communication/sensory.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide services or treatment to increase or prevent further decrease in Range of Motion (ROM). This was evident for 1 (#74) of 2 residents reviewed for Position, Mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1) ensure that oxygen was administered at the rate ordered by the physician, 2) failed to accurately document the resident's oxygen rate in the treatment record, 3) failed to assess a resident's breath sounds before and after a breathing treatment and failed to develop a resident centered care plan for a resident with a diagnosis of Asthma and receiving oxygen. This was evident for 1 (#59) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, and for 1 (#49) of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on a medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that a physician failed to fully evaluate a resident as related to facility acquired pressure ulcers. This is evident for 1 (#75) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wrote3) A review of the medical record for Resident #13 on 2/6/19 noted the last physician's visit in the paper medical record was dated for 3/5/18. The last physician's visit in the electronic medical record was dated 9/11/18, with a documented average of 1 month between physician visit and upload to electronic medical record. There were no other physician's progress notes found in either the paper or electronic medical record. Upon request monthly physician visits notes going back to 4/8/2018 was received on 2/7/19 for review. Based on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the physician failed to write, sign and date medical visit progress notes in resident medical records on the day the resident was seen. [...]
15 fire safety citations on file: 7 on October 9, 2025, 6 on September 25, 2023, 2 on February 8, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 25, 2023 | Fine | $97,777 |
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) | 3.29 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.69 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.96 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.02 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.58 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 23.2% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 7.7% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.35 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 3.42 on weekdays and 2.96 on weekends, 13% 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 3.26 in April to June 2025 to 3.29 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 | 3.29 | 0.69 | 3.42 | 2.96 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 100 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.39 | 0.67 | 3.53 | 3.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 99 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.44 | 0.57 | 3.58 | 3.09 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 105 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.26 | 0.50 | 3.42 | 2.86 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 108 |
| 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 | 21.6 | 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 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 31.1 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.4 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.3 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Cumberland Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (53.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
53.8% 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. 220 eligible stays.
12.6% 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. 216 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 130 eligible stays.
52.1% 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. 71 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Maryland0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 109 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. 109 residents counted.
100.0% 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: WINIFRED LEASING CO LLC. CMS links this home to Communicare Health, a group of 110 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC Mstr Lsco, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2017 |
| Stoltz, Charles | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/01/2017 | |
| Romeo, Dominic | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Wilheim, Ronald | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2017 | |
| Winifred Mgt Co., LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/01/2017 | |
| Blowe, Nola | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2017 | |
| Groves, Donna | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/14/2023 | |
| McEldowney, Thomas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/09/2017 | |
| Romeo, Dominic | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Stoltz, Charles | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2017 | |
| Odenthal, Richard | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/08/2025 | |
| Winifred Mgt Co., LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/16/2025 | |
| Blowe, Nola | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2017 | |
| McEldowney, Thomas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/09/2017 |
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.