1217 West Fayette Street, Baltimore, MD 21223 · Baltimore City County · (410) 727-3947
156 certified beds, about 129 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215183 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 1, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 72 health citations since March 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $162,159 in the last three years; the largest was $162,159, and the latest is dated April 3, 2024.
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 0.48 of those hours.
27.7% 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 72 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews it was determined the facility staff failed to conduct a thorough investigation. This was evident for 1 (#2801571) of 5 facility reported incidents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide food that accommodated a resident's allergies, intolerances and preferences. This was evident for 1 (#10) of 14 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to document administration of medication at the time of administration, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices. This was evident for 1 (#10) of 14 residents reviewed during the survey. The nursing standard of practice for medication administration includes administering time critical medication (which includes insulin) within 30 minutes before or after the scheduled time; and real time charting of when the medication was administered.
Inspectors wroteBased on Complaint #2625762, employee file reviews, and facility staff interviews, and facility documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to employ Licensed Practical Nurses in accordance with Maryland State laws. This was found evident for 2 (LPN #8 and LPN #14) out of 4 employees reviewed for appropriate licensures during the survey. The facility continued to employ LPN # 8 and LPN # 14 after the initial identification of non-recognized licensure on 4/3/24 through 11/21/25. Residents were at risk for improper care or negligence when their care was not provided by qualified licensed personnel, therefore The Maryland Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) determined this concern met the Federal definition of Immediate Jeopardy and the facility was notified in writing on 11/21/25 at 2 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that residents had their call bells to notify the staff when assistance was needed. This deficient practice was evidenced in 9 (#16, #27, #48, #51, #52, #69, #89, #112, & #116) of 33 residents screened on Patuxent Hall during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1) store and process linen properly and 2)maintain effective infection prevention practices. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all the residents who were in the facility during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain a comfortable, clean and homelike environment for the residents as evidenced of residents not having pillows and residents' clothing not being stored in the closet or armoire. This deficient practice was evidenced in 5 (#116, #40, #51, #27, & #89) of 33 residents residing on Patuxent Hall during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to generate person centered care plans for a resident with Dementia, two residents with visual disturbances, and a resident who needed to wear a helmet to protect their brain while out of bed. This deficient practice was evidenced in 2 ( #12, #91) of 5 resident records reviewed for care plans during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to complete quarterly care plan meetings. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1 (#96) of 2 resident records reviewed for care plan meetings during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to adhere to professional nursing standards as evidenced by a resident received hospice care for 12 days without a physician order, the facility staff failed to coordinate the residents' care with the hospice nurse, and a resident was prescribed psychotropic medication without behavioral monitoring or monitoring for extrapyramidal side effects. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1 (#43) of 1 hospice record reviewed and 1 (#10) of 2 records reviewed for extrapyramidal side effects/behavioral monitoring during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and resident and staff interviews it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that dependent resident's personal hygiene needs were adequately met by offering and providing podiatry services to get their toenails trimmed on a regular basis. This was evident for 1 of 30 (#119) residents reviewed during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents who had impaired vision received vision care and a recommended assistive device. This deficient practice was evidenced in 2 (#12 & #91) of 2 resident records reviewed for vision services during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Nephrostomy drainage bag care was provided to a resident with a Nephrostomy . This was evident for 1 (#4) of 1 resident reviewed with a Nephrostomy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper infection control procedures while serving breakfast. This was evident during the annual rectification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain the facility in a safe operating condition as evidenced by the heating/AC unit front in a resident's room was on the floor, damaged drywall in residents' rooms, a sink wasn't secured to the bathroom wall, holes in residents' bathroom door, an electrical plate was not secured to the wall, a bed control had exposed wires, an armoire with dry rotten wood, damaged tile in the shower room, a hole in the wall in the laundry room & damaged floor tile, multiple soiled ceiling tile in the stored linen room. This deficient practice was discovered in different areas in the facility during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to keep a sanitary environment. This was evident for 2 of 2 Residents (Residents # 64 and # 72) rooms observed during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility's nursing staff failed to ensure that an newly admitted resident (resident #17) had a complete discharge summary from the local hospital. This failure to have a complete discharge summary from the local hospital led to the facility being unsure if they had the complete list of medications needed for the resident's care. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for neglect during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility's nursing staff and telehealth provider failed to ensure that a newly admitted resident with respiratory issues (resident #17) had an order for oxygen administration. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for neglect during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and clinical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents received showers at least twice a week. This was evident for 4 residents (#81, #111, #116, and #28) out of 48 residents who were part of the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) and to maintain a proper resident's Advance Directive in the resident's medical record. This was found to be evident for 7 (Resident #27, #64, #61 and #111) out of 9 residents reviewed for advance directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that residents and resident representatives are notified in writing of the bed hold policy upon transfer to the hospital. This was found to be evident for 4 (Residents #16, #63, #109, and #117) out of 6 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document resident assessment on the MDS (Minimum Data Set) as evidenced by the inaccurate coding for residents. This was found to be evident for 4 out of 6 Residents (#13, #16, #24, & #28) reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to hold care plan meetings with an interdisciplinary team for residents at the time of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This was found evident for 3 (#97, #33, and #81) of 6 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and observation it was determined that the facility failed to provide wound care treatments according to professional standards. This was found evident of 4 (Resident #101, #21, #332, and #74) of 6 Residents reviewed for skin and wound care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices by: 1) safeguarding resident identifiable information from the public and 2) keeping accurate documentation. This was found evident in 4 of 45 (Resident #73, #101, #332, and #533) residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff sanitized medical equipment between residents and failed to ensure gowns were available for staff use as posted on the Enhanced Barrier Precaution signage at the door. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 3 staff observed for infection control and for 4 rooms (#300, #336, #338, and #340) out of 10 rooms observed for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)availability.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the dignity of the residents as evidenced by: 1) Nursing staff failed to wear a name tag and 2) Nursing staff use of a personal cell phone during Resident's (#16) care. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 1 Resident for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review it was determined that the facility failed to honor the rights, delegated to a Resident's Representative by informing them of changes to the plan of care. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #77) of 9 residents reviewed for advanced directive during an annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and documentation review it was determined the facility failed to ensure that personal property was not lost. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #28) out of 1 Resident observed for missing property.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the reporting of reasonable suspicion of an abuse result in serious bodily injury was no later than 2 hours to the State Agency after informing the State Agency of the suspicion of an abuse incident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #64) out of 12 residents reviewed for the facility self-report incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to: 1) provide written notice with the reason for transfer to a Resident and 2) failed to notify the Ombudsman of residents that transferred. This was found evident of 3 of 6 (Resident #332, #63, and #109) residents reviewed for hospitalization during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop and provide the baseline care plan to a newly admitted resident. This was found to be evident for 1(Resident #125 and #109) of 6 residents reviewed for care planning during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop a care plan for smoking. This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #28, #125, and #111) out of 6 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and observation it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that residents toenails were cut. This was evident for 1 (#183) out of 48 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review it was determined that the facility failed to have an activities program designed to meet the interests and needs of residents based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and care plan. This was found evident of 2 (Resident #7 and #79) of 5 residents reviewed for activity during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate of 5% or less. This was found to be evident for the medication administration observation during the re-certification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe and effective system for securing medication and treatments in designated carts on the nursing units. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 7 medication carts and 2 out of 5 treatment carts observed during random tours of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and medical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to assist the resident as necessary to make appointments for dental care or treatment. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident # 13) out of 3 residents reviewed for dental treatments during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and employee file review it was determined that the facility failed to employ a Licensed Practical Nurse in accordance with Maryland State laws. This was found evident in 1 (Staff #13) out of 11 employees reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's bed mattress was properly secured to the bed frame. This was found evident of 2 residents (Resident #85, & #97) on 4 different observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as evidenced by the presence of insects. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 1 resident's (#77) room observed for pest control.
Inspectors wroteBased on employee record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to monitor staff to ensure required in-service training for nurse aide staff was completed. This was found evident in 1 out of 5 Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA# 48) reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, staff interview, and an investigation of Intake #MD00203099 it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's personal and medical information. That was placed in another resident's clinical record. This was evident for 1 (#382) out of 48 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility incidents, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from verbal abuse. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #24 and #78) out of 9 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, the facility staff failed to provide adequate supervision to a resident, who received a recent Narcan administration. This was evident for 1 of 74 residents (Resident #41) reviewed during a complaint survey. As a result of these findings, an immediate jeopardy was declared on [DATE] at 12:00 PM and the immediate jeopardy tool was provided. The facility submitted several versions of a plan to abate the IJ that were rejected by the Office of Health Care Quality. The rejected plans to abate the IJ were submitted on [DATE] at the following times: 4:09 PM, 4:43 PM, 6:21 PM, 6:46 PM, 8:13 PM and 8:27 PM. The facility submitted the final plan to abate the IJ on [DATE] at 9:36 PM. On [DATE] at 10:00 PM, the facility's abatement plan was accepted by the Office of Health Care Quality. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, facility nursing staff failed to sufficiently manage a resident ' s pain (Resident #41), resulting in harm to the resident. This was evident for 1 of 74 residents reviewed during a complaint survey. After review of pain management staff training completed after the incident and changes to facility pain management policy the deficient practice was cited as past non-compliance. The compliance date was [DATE].
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility-reported incidents, employee personnel files, closed clinical record review, facility abuse policy review, and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure resident # 71 was free from verbal abuse. This was evident for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a facility reported incident, administrative files and staff interview, it was determined that the facility administration failed to implement the facility abuse policy by not performing a back-ground check on an employee. This was evident for 1 of 8 employee files reviewed for abuse during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a complaint and a closed health record, as well as staff interview, it was determined that the nursing staff failed to administer an antibiotic as ordered. This was evident for 1 (Resident #45) of 70 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, reviews of a closed medical record, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to timely provide medication to meet the needs of the residents. This was evident for 1 (Resident #35) of 70 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of medical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1) have a process to ensure the clinical pharmacist's monthly medication reviews were reviewed by the physician with a documented response in the resident's medical record. This was evident for 1 (Residents #41) of 70 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staff roster review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility has a bed capacity of 150 and did not employ a qualified social worker from January 2016 to the present on a full-time basis. This deficient practice was found during a complaint survey and has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a written notice for emergency transfers to the resident /or the resident representative and ombudsman. This was found to be evident for 5 out of 5 residents reviewed for a facility-initiated transfer during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to review and revise the interdisciplinary care plans to reveal accurate interventions for Residents (#57 and #23). This was evident for 2 of 40 residents selected for investigation during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to document/obtain the blood pressure for a resident with parameters (Resident #102 and #23). This was evident for 2 of 40 residents reviewed during survey investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to obtain laboratory blood specimens on Residents (#12, #23, #84, #59 and #90). This was evident for 5 of 44 residents selected for review during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident complaints and surveyor observation it was determined the facility failed to provide food at a safe and appetizing temperature. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
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 observation and interview of facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide Resident #23 with the most dignified existence. This was evident for 1 of 44 residents selected for resident rights during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to promote self-determination for Residents (#23 and #92). This was evident for 1 of 44 residents selected for review of self-determination during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and resident 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.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility staff failed to document accurate assessment for Resident (#23) on the MDS. This was evident for 1 of 44 residents selected for review of MDSs assessment during the annual survey process. The MDS is a federally-mandated assessment tool that helps nursing home staff gathers information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. MDS assessments need to be accurate to ensure each resident receives the care they need. Categories of MDS (Minimum Data Set) are: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for a resident (#131). This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary tract infections during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed provide care to promote the highest well-being to residents. The facility staff failed to obtain an infectious disease consultation for Resident (#12) as ordered; failed to obtain a Hematology/Oncology consultation as ordered for Resident (#71) and failed to provide a dressing change as ordered for Resident (#251). This was evident for 1 of 44 residents selected for review for provision of care during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide Resident (#23) with a sippy cup as ordered and failed to notify the Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner (CRNP)/physician of a weight loss for Resident (#71). This was evident for 2 of 44 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to obtain and administer an ordered pain medication (Resident # 304) and failed to follow physician orders in administering a pain medication (Resident #84). This is evident for 2 out of 3 residents reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to have enough staffing to ensure Resident #71 was provided an escort for an appointment. This was evident for 1 of 44 residents selected for review of enough staffing during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to obtain a psychiatric consultation for Resident #84 in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 of 44 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the consultant pharmacist failed to conduct a thorough medical record review to identify and bring to the facility staff's attention Resident #23 not receiving blood pressures and heart rate ordered by the physician. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents selected for review of un-necessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure staffing hours for nursing staff were posted and to ensure 18 months of posted nursing data were maintained. This was true for 4 out of 4 nursing units.
18 fire safety citations on file: 5 on December 1, 2025, 12 on April 3, 2024, 1 on March 11, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 3, 2024 | Payment Denial | 26 days from May 17, 2024 |
| October 2, 2023 | Fine | $162,159 |
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 | 0.48 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.94 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.88 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.93 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 27.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 59.1% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.05 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.43 on weekdays and 2.94 on weekends, 14% 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 3.44 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 | 0.48 | 3.43 | 2.94 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 129 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.42 | 0.60 | 3.62 | 2.94 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 123 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.49 | 0.58 | 3.71 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 127 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.44 | 0.52 | 3.62 | 2.98 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 134 |
| 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 | 26.9 | 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 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 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 | 12.6 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.7 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.8 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.2 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Fayette Health and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.9% 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. 61 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. 65 eligible stays.
7.2% 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. 31 eligible stays.
66.7% 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. 33 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. 51 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. 51 residents counted.
80.7% 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. 31 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.