Home / Maryland / Silver Spring
2015 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 · Montgomery County · (301) 587-2400
87 certified beds, about 69 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1989
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215197 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 10, 2025, inspectors cited 28 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 68 health citations since January 2019 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.30 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.46 of those hours.
64.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Engage Healthcare, an affiliated group of 5 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 68 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined the facility staff failed to develop and implement a system to ensure accurate accountability of controlled substances by 1) failing to have a system to accurately identify staff reconciling and signing out controlled substances upon receipt, shift audits and administration; 2) failing to identify a discrepancy in the controlled substance inventory; and 3) failing to maintain accurate record keeping, when controlled substances were removed from the inventory. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility staff failed to implement measures as per the resident's Plan of Care and standards of nursing practice to promote dignity for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) of 5 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to implement standard infection control measures for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) of 5 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of misappropriation of resident property to the state survey agency for 1 (Resident #1) of 8 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of misappropriation of resident property for 1 (Resident #1) of 8 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise the care plan of 1 (Resident #2) of 19 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to coordinate vision services for 1 (Resident #2) of 19 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide comfortable room temperatures for 5 (Resident #1, #3, #5, #6, and #7) of 72 residents and 12 rooms and 3 common areas reviewed for comfortable room temperatures impacting resident activities and comfort.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an ongoing resident centered activities program designed to meet the interests and support the physical, mental and psychological well-being of each resident. This was evident for all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that food was delivered to residents at an appropriate and palatable temperature. This was evident for 1 out of 1 observation of test tray temperatures. This practice has the potential to affect all residents who eat food prepared by the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store and label food item to maintain the integrity of the specific item. This was evident during the initial tour of the kitchen. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation whether Residents had an advance directive and/or wished to formulate an advance directive. This was found to be evident for 4 (Resident #27, #28, #54 and #56) out of 4 Residents reviewed for advance directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) revise the resident's comprehensive care plan, 2) hold care plan meetings, 3) Reassess the effectiveness of the care plan approaches and 4) have quarterly care plan meetings with the Interdisciplinary Team. This was evident for 5 (Resident #27, #48, #58, #52 and #46) of 44 residents reviewed for care plan timing and revision during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were properly stored and labeled. This was evident for 2 of 2 medication carts observed for medication storage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to use appropriate infection control practices for 1) conducting ongoing surveillance for infections and 2) urinary catheter maintenance and ensuring that staff observed appropriate practices for enhanced barrier precautions during a high contact care for residents with indwelling urinary catheters and with pressure ulcer. This was found to be evident on the tour of the laundry department, during a record surveillance for infections and for 3 (Resident #48, #58 and #272) of 44 residents reviewed for infection control during the recertification survey
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed provide a family meeting to discuss grievances regarding the care of a resident. This was evident for1 (Resident #336) of 44 residents reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate a facility reported incident of resident-to-resident abuse. This was evident for 1 (Resident #330) of 44 residents reviewed during survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notification of the Resident's transfer or discharge to the Resident or Resident Representative and the facility Ombudsman. This finding was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #2, #27 and #54) of 3 residents reviewed for notice requirements before transfer or discharge to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notification of the bed hold policy for Residents that were transferred to the hospital. This finding was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #2, #27 and #54) of 3 residents reviewed for notice requirements of bed hold policy before or upon transfer to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, surveyor record review and facility staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for residents, 1) with oxygen usage and 2) with discharge status. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #28 and #71) of 2 resident reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident was provided with summaries of the baseline care plan. This was evident for 2 (Resident #48 and #8) of 44 residents reviewed for baseline care plan during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop, implement and update a comprehensive care plan to include 1) smoking, 2) the residents' functional abilities and 3) the residents' use of anti-psychotic medications. This was evident for 2 (Resident #58 and #57) of 44 residents reviewed for care planning during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who required assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) were 1) provided with showers and 2) properly groomed. This was evident for 3 (Resident #335, #12 and #53) of 44 residents reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record reviews, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to 1) document the delivery of daily wound care to a resident with a pressure ulcer and 2) implement recommendations made by the wound care team to treat pressure ulcers. This was evident for 2 (Resident #28 and #23) of 2 residents evaluated for pressure ulcer care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the prescribed treatment for limited mobility. This was evident for 1 (Resident #53) of 1 resident reviewed for positioning and mobility during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate management of a resident's Intravenous antibiotic schedule. This was evident for 1 (Resident #324) of 44 resident reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate respiratory care and services. This was found to be evident in 1 (Resident #28) of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care and services during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations and skill assessments were completed. This was found to be evident for 2 (#3 and #6) of 5 Geriatric Nurse Assistants (GNAs) reviewed for Sufficient and Competent Nurse Staffing.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor the behaviors of residents receiving anti-psychotropic medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident #57) of 1 resident reviewed for Dementia care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate behavior monitoring for resident on psychotropic medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident #58) of 4 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who require dental services on a routine basis receive the recommended dental service in a timely manner. This was evident in 2 (Resident #9 and #12) of 2 residents reviewed for Dental services.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Administration documents and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a Transfer agreement to the local hospitals. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 1 Dialysis Agreement document reviewed during the Extended Survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Administration documents and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a Transfer agreement to the local hospitals. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 1 Transfer Agreement document reviewed during the Extended Survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective QAPI program that addresses the deficient practices in the facility. This was evident during the revisit recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have an Infection Preventionist (IP) participate in the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee meetings. This was evident in 9 of the 11 months of attendance records reviewed for the Quality Assurance Improvement Program.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and facility staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide documentation that Residents were offered the pneumococcal vaccine. This was found to be evident in 3 (Resident #27, 54 and 56) of 5 Residents reviewed for pneumococcal immunization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide 1) a safe, clean, comfortable, homelike environment and 2) an environment that included comfortable temperature levels. This finding was found to be evident on a tour of the laundry department, 3 (Rooms #25, #26 and #28) of 8 resident rooms observed for safe, clean, comfortable, homelike environment and 2 of 15 complaints reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide transportation services for residents' appointments. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #8) of 1 resident reviewed for transportation services during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a complaint, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to document the incidents of falls, implement and update the interventions to prevent falls for a resident who was identified as a fall risk. This was evident for 1 (Resident #58) of 2 residents reviewed for accidents during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a process to determine if residents with a history of trauma, received the appropriate trauma informed care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #328) of 4 residents reviewed for trauma informed care during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the Nurse Practitioner's (NP#21) admission history and physical progress note included new order for Resident #329 under the plan of care that was not written as orders. This was evident for 1 (Resident #329) of 44 residents reviewed during a recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately 1) record a medication administration in a resident's medical record, 2) document the route of a medication administered to a resident and 3) maintain complete records in accordance with accepted professional standards. This was evident for 3 (Resident #328, #56 and #326) of 44 residents reviewed during an facility's annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, review of the facility investigation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to implement abuse prevention polices as evidenced by staff's failure to, 1) immediately notify the facility administrator of an allegation of resident abuse, 2) immediately initiate an investigation into the allegation of resident abuse, and 3) report an allegation of resident abuse to the State Regulatory Agency (Office of Health Care Quality). This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) of 5 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of administrative documents and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to complete an annual performance review of nurse aides and provide in-service education based on the outcomes of the reviews. This finding was evident for 3 of 3 Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) selected for review of in-service education during the survey (GNAs #2, #3, and #4).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews with facility staff and residents and review of administrative documents, it was determined that the facility administration failed to use its resources effectively and efficiently to provide activities of daily living to residents, to maintain sufficient nurse staffing and to follow their self-identified staffing patterns as per the facility assessment. This finding was evident for 2 of 2 nursing units reviewed for the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of administrative records and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to review and follow their facility assessment. This finding was evident for 1 of 1 facility assessment reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to identify quality deficiencies and develop and implement appropriate plans of action. This finding was evident for 1 of 1 quality assurance improvement programs presented by the facility administrator.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and facility staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to have an adequate system to monitor antibiotic usage and to review the antibiotic stewardship annually. This finding was identified during review of the antibiotic stewardship program and was evident facility wide.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, and interviews with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed staff failed to provide the necessary services to residents that require assistance or total care to complete activities of daily living. This finding was evident for 4 of 7 residents selected for the activities of daily living (ADL) review (Residents #1, #10, #30, and #48). Activities of daily living are routine activities people do every day. The six basic ADLs include eating, bathing (which includes showering), getting dressed, toileting, transferring, and incontinence care. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) is part of the federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents in Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide treatment according to physicians' orders. This finding was evident for 3 of 16 residents selected for review during the survey (Resident #29, #33, and #48).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observations; interviews with residents and staff; and the review of clinical records, staff schedules and assignments, and the facility assessment, it was determined that the facility failed to provide personal care needs to residents in a timely manner. This finding was evident for 2 of 2 nursing units in the facility (the North unit and the East unit). This finding and was related to complaints #MD00147732.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical records and interview of facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the use of as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days period, failed to monitor and document the side effects of psychotropic medications and failed to document the necessity for increasing psychotropic drugs and monitoring target behaviors for which the psychotropic drugs were prescribed. This finding was evident for 4 of 6 (Resident #1, #17, #23, and #27) residents selected for review of psychotropic medications. A psychotropic drug is any drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior. These drugs include, but are not limited to, drugs in the following categories: anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, and hypnotic. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of administrative documents and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide at least 12 hours of in-service education to nurses aides. This finding was evident for 3 of 3 Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) selected for review of in-service education during the survey (GNA #2, #3, and #4).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interviews of residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an environment that promotes residents' respect and dignity. This finding was evident in 1 of 3 residents selected for dignity review (Resident #33).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interviews with facility staff and residents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, homelike environment to residents. This finding was evident for 2 of 39 resident rooms observed during the survey (rooms #19 and #39).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of clinical records and interview with staff, residents and residents' representatives, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notification of a resident's transfer or discharge to the resident or representative. This finding was evident for 2 of 2 residents selected for review of hospitalizations (Residents #33 and #202).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and facility staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notification of the bed hold policy for residents that were transferred to the hospital. This finding was evident for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for the hospitalization care area during the survey (Residents #33 and #202).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and an interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for discharge planning. This finding was evident for 1 of 16 residents selected for the survey (Resident #25). On 01-16-2020 at 11:49 AM, surveyor review of the clinical record revealed that Resident #25 was admitted for rehabilitation and was to be discharged to home. Surveyor review of the care plan for Resident #25 revealed no evidence that a discharge care plan was developed. On 01-16-2020 at 12:30 PM, surveyor interview of DON revealed no further information.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to revise residents' comprehensive care plans. This finding was evident for 2 of 16 residents selected for review during the survey (Resident #29 and #33).
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of clinical records and an interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to arrange a consultation with an outside physician specialist as ordered by a facility physician. This finding was evident for 1 of 16 residents selected for review during the survey (Resident#17).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, review of clinical records, facility policy and procedures and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain infection control practices during blood glucose monitoring for 1 of 1 resident observed for glucose testing (Resident #39).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and facility staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to inspect the bed frame and mattress to identify areas of possible entrapment for 1 of 16 residents selected for review during the survey (Resident #16).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and facility staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to verify the authority of the decision maker, and failed to clarify conflicting orders for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This finding was evident in 2 of 3 residents selected for review of the advance directive care area (#44 and #37)
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide pertinent information to the receiving facility upon discharge of a resident. This finding was evident in 1 of 3 records selected for review of the discharge care area. (#164)
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to properly dispose of expired medication and biologicals. This finding was evident in 1 of 1 medication rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide periodic notification to residents of change in coverage made to items and services covered by Medicare. This finding was evident for 2 of 3 (#40, #212) residents selected for review of beneficiary protection notification during this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of clinical records and interviews with staff and residents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notification of a resident's transfer or discharge to the resident and/or representative. This was evident for 2 of 4 (#34, 40) residents selected for review of hospitalization during this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, review of the clinical record and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to accurately assess the residents' medical condition. This finding was evident in 2 of 23 records selected for review (#32, #164).
15 fire safety citations on file: 7 on March 10, 2025, 6 on January 17, 2020, 2 on January 18, 2019.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.30 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.46 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.08 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.97 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.87 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 64.5% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 63.6% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.55 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 3.39 on weekdays and 3.08 on weekends, 9% 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 3.15 in April to June 2025 to 3.30 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 | 3.30 | 0.46 | 3.39 | 3.08 | 0.0% | 1 of 90 | 69 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.30 | 0.46 | 3.38 | 3.09 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 70 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.24 | 0.48 | 3.35 | 2.97 | 1.3% | 0 of 92 | 70 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.15 | 0.52 | 3.30 | 2.79 | 9.2% | 0 of 91 | 71 |
| 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 | 14.1 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.8 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.2 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.4 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.5 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.1 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Fox Chase Healthcare's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (33.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
33.7% this home
Worse 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. 52 eligible stays.
10.3% 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. 56 eligible stays.
8.5% 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. 44 eligible stays.
50.0% 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. 32 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. 55 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. 55 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 13 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: SUMMIT HILLS MD OPCO. CMS links this home to Engage Healthcare, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 1.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summit Hills Md Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/01/2023 |
| Lighten, Jake | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 08/01/2023 |
| Paneth, Jack | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 08/01/2023 |
| Nabi, Abdoulatif | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| Paneth, Jack | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| Lighten, Jake | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2023 |
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.