1454 Fairfield Loop Road, Crownsville, MD 21032 · Anne Arundel County · (410) 923-6820
96 certified beds, about 65 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215236 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 21, 2025, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 58 health citations since May 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $51,597 in the last three years; the largest was $51,597, and the latest is dated January 30, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.57 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.61 of those hours.
32.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Fundamental Healthcare, an affiliated group of 66 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 58 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to obtain consent from a resident's representative for a change in treatment. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) of 6 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a complaint, observation of resident rooms, and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly and comfortable interior. This was evident for 1 (Resident #3) of 5 resident rooms observed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to follow consultant physician orders for residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #2 and #7) of 7 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and facility staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, homelike environment for Residents. This finding was found to be evident in 6 out of 33 Resident rooms and common areas reviewed for safe/clean/comfortable/homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards. This was evident of 2 of 3 kitchen observations and 1 of 2 unit refrigerator observations during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, 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 evident in 4 (Resident # 69, #10, #33 & #25) out of 33 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to involve and inform a resident on treatment changes. This was found evident in 1 (Resident #39) out of 33 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction or have documented contraindication rationale for a resident receiving a psychotropic medication. This was found evident in 2 (Resident #10 & #33) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments on Residents. This finding was found to be evident in 3 (Resident #4, #3 & # 33) out of 33 Residents reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 #10) out of 2 Residents reviewed for care planning during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, facility staff interview, and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate respiratory care and services. This finding was found to be evident in 1 (Resident #42) out of 1 Resident reviewed for respiratory care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to adhere to professional standards of practice for medication disposition. This was found to be evident in 1 out of 2 carts reviewed for medicine storage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was served a meal according to a predetermined menu. This was evident for 1 (#10) 2 residents reviewed for food during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to perform hand hygiene between resident encounters. This was evident for 1 (Resident #72) out of 6 medication passes observed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a Resident's environment was free from accident hazards related to the compatibility of a Resident's mattress and bed frame. This finding was found to be evident in 1 (Resident #12) out of 1 Resident reviewed for accident hazards and Resident beds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined the facility failed to 1) ensure that the resident's call system was functioning properly and 2) failed to have a call light device accessible for a Resident to call for staff assistance. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #25) for call light function and 1 (Resident #42) out of 8 Residents reviewed for Resident call system accessibility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews and record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for a Resident and staff. This finding was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #24 & #33) out of 33 Residents reviewed for a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment and in the laundry and parking lot area.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and facility staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure all corridors had firmly installed handrails on each side.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews and record review it was determined that the facility failed to display the current posted nurse staffing information in a timely manner. This finding was found to be evident in review of sufficient and competent nurse staffing.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, interview, and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice when administering medications. This was evident for 4 (#14, #8, #17, #20) of 25 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, medical record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide showers twice weekly to residents. This was evident for 5 (#19, #13, #17, #24, #15) of 25 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, observations, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain a working call bell system. This was evident for 1 (Capitol) of 2 nursing units observed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, observations, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, visitors, and staff. This was evident in 2 of 2 outside areas during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that the resident's call light was within reach, per the individualized care plans, to allow access to assistance when needed. This was evident for 1 (#15) of 25 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded (Resident #4). This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for MDS assessments during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, medical record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a care plan meeting after an MDS assessment. This was evident for 1 (#13) out of 14 residents reviewed for complaints during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide wound care treatment as prescribed by the physician. This was evident for 2 (#19, #14) of 4 residents reviewed for wound care during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide treatment/services to prevent/heal pressures ulcers. This was evident for 1 (#7) 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to follow recommendations from the dietitian timely and notify the Resident's physician or nurse practitioner of the Resident's continued weight loss (Resident #4). This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutritional status during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and facility staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that either the attending physician, physician assistant or nurse practitioner visited residents at the required intervals of every 60 days (Resident #4). This finding was evident in 1 of 3 residents reviewed for physician visits during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff, it was determined the facility failed to timely provide medication to meet the needs of the residents. This was evident for 1 (#8) of 25 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to keep a resident's drug regimen free from unnecessary drugs by failing to monitor a resident's blood pressure when there were physician ordered blood pressure parameters. This was evident for 1 (#8) of 25 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, observation, staff interview, and documentation review, it was determined that facility staff failed to keep medication carts locked when unattended, failed to date medications when opened, and refrigerate medication that required refrigeration. This was evident on 1 of 2 nursing units observed during random observations made during a complaint survey. On 9/10/25 at 8:30 AM a review of complaint 323371 was conducted and alleged that on the weekends medication carts were left unlocked all day. On 9/11/25 at 10:55 AM observation was made of an unlocked and unattended medication cart sitting in the 200 hallway outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The surveyor heard the nurse in room [ROOM NUMBER], however the nurse (staff #20) had her back to the door and was standing up towards the head of the resident's bed and the medication cart was not in her sight. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to obtain follow up dental services for a resident (Resident #4). This was evident for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed for dental services during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident received their prescribed diet with the prescribed consistency. This was evident for 2 (#6, #9) of 8 residents observed in the dining room during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, medical record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards. This was evident for 1 (#19) of 25 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to arrange Hospice services for a resident who requested the services. This was evident for 1 (#7) of 25 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to post the nurse staffing data at the beginning of each shift and failed to post the total number and the actual hours worked by nursing staff. This was evident upon entry to the facility in the lobby area, on 2 of 2 nursing units, and for the first two days of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct and document timely care plan meetings for residents. This was evident for 4 (#46, #4, #69 and #21) out of 6 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) maintain a resident's bed in the low position, maintain a clean floor in a resident's room, ensure a resident's safety fall mats were in place, ensure medication carts were secured at all times when not in use and 2) failed to implement measures to reduce resident safety risks when building doors and patio gates were unlocked during the after hours. This was evident for 2 (#4 and #14) out of 56 sampled residents, 1 random observation of medication carts, and four doors of building entrances/exits observed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to store food in a manner that maintains professional standards of food service safety. This practice had the potential to affect all residents who eat the food prepared in the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the call light system was available, functional and operational for all residents. This was evident for 6 residents (Resident #15, #33, #8, #18, #22, and #36) out of 76 residents screened during the initial phase of the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents are offered two showers each week. This was evident for 1 (#28) out of 56 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents were offered an opportunity to complete Advance Directives upon admission. This was evident for 3 (#14, #38, #46) out of 9 residents reviewed for Advance Directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation it was determined that the facility nursing staff failed to ensure a resident's medical information was kept private. This was evident for 1 (#59) out of 56 residents that are in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident or resident representative in writing of the reason for transfer to the hospital. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #69 and Resident #35) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalizations during the investigative portion of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure baseline care plans were developed for the residents. This was evident for 1 (#28) out of 6 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, observation, and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to: 1) ensure a resident had the opportunity to participate in an activity program, and 2) provide an ongoing resident-centered activities program to improve or maintain the resident's mental and psychosocial well-being. This was evident for 3 (#28, #46 and #6) out 5 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident was repositioned. This was evident for 1 (#28) out 56 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and observation it was determined that the residents are not provided with an adequate and/or varied diet. This was evident for 2 (#30 and #28) out of 56 residents reviewed in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure a resident's personal information was not in another resident's clinical record and 2) ensure medical records were complete by voiding an old MOLST when a new MOLST was completed. This was evident for 2 (#13 and #33) of 56 residents sampled during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure proper infection control practices were followed. This was evident for 3 random observations made during annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to protect a resident from abuse from another resident known for wandering. This resulted in harm to Resident #18 who required hospitalization with rib fractures. This was evident for 1 (Resident #18) of 8 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to update a resident's care plan related to wandering. This was evident for 1 of 25 residents (#24) reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of a facility reported incident, medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to appropriately transfer a resident. This was evident 1 of 3 residents reviewed for transfers during a complaint survey. (#19)
Inspectors wroteBased on a tour of the facility and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain infection control procedures while providing patient care. This was evident on 1 of 2 units.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that items used for personal hygiene in a bathroom shared by Residents #4 and #25 were appropriately labeled. This was evident for 2 of 32 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and resident and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a call light was within reach of Resident #4. This was evident for 1 of 32 residents reviewed during the survey.
47 fire safety citations on file: 10 on November 21, 2025, 31 on May 3, 2024, 6 on May 3, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 30, 2024 | Fine | $51,597 |
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) | 3.57 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.61 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.20 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.75 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.20 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 32.6% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
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 3.72 on weekdays and 3.20 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 10.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.26 in April to June 2025 to 3.57 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 | 3.57 | 0.61 | 3.72 | 3.20 | 10.5% | 0 of 90 | 65 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.51 | 0.56 | 3.66 | 3.13 | 12.1% | 0 of 92 | 64 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.20 | 0.56 | 3.34 | 2.84 | 5.8% | 0 of 92 | 69 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.26 | 0.58 | 3.38 | 2.97 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 70 |
| 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 | 15.6 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 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 | 23.6 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.1 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.5 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.2 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Fairfield Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (67.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
67.8% 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. 362 eligible stays.
14.0% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Maryland: 0 better, 41 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 393 eligible stays.
5.9% 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. 208 eligible stays.
41.9% this home
Median of homes: Maryland61.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 155 residents counted.
0.5% 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. 195 residents counted.
2.8% 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. 195 residents counted.
94.1% 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. 102 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: CROWNSVILLE HEALTH CARE LLC. CMS links this home to Fundamental Healthcare, a group of 66 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland Long Term Care LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/18/2016 |
| Woodbury, Charles | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 02/16/2018 | |
| Woodbury, Charles | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/16/2018 |
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.