Home / Maryland / Fort Washington
12021 Livingston Road, Fort Washington, MD 20744 · Prince Georges County · (301) 292-0300
150 certified beds, about 139 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215146 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 25, 2025, inspectors cited 19 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 51 health citations since April 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $7,443 in the last three years; the largest was $7,443, and the latest is dated October 11, 2023.
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 0.52 of those hours.
36.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Health Care Facility Management, LLC, 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 51 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to electronically transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the required timeframe. This was evident for 5 (Resident #2, #9, #16, #18 and #21) of 12 residents reviewed for resident assessment during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to hold quarterly Care Plan Meetings with the Interdisciplinary Team. This was evident for 4 (Resident #21, #13, #12 and #70) of 9 Residents reviewed for care plan meetings during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to protect and value the resident's private space by failing to knock prior to entering a resident's room. This was evident for 1 (Resident #158) of 2 residents reviewed for dignity during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the Physician and the Resident Representative of 1) a recommendation received after an eye appointment, and 2) medication errors that occurred during medication administration observation. This is evident for 2 (Resident #130 and #90) of 2 residents reviewed during the recertification and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe and homelike environment. This was found to be evident for 2 (Residents #12 and #13) out of 28 resident rooms observed for the physical environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notification to the local ombudsman when residents transferred to the hospital. This was evident for 2 (Resident #15 and #145) out of 5 residents reviewed for written notice requirements before transfer/discharge.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to complete an admission comprehensive MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment within the required timeframe. This was evident for 1 (Residents #158) of 12 residents reviewed for resident assessment during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 1 (Resident #122) of 40 residents selected for review during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission screening and Resident Review (PASSR) was completed. This was evident for 1 (Resident #12) out of 28 Resident's reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for residents with oxygen therapy orders. This was evident for 2 (Resident #163 and #145) of 36 residents reviewed for care planning during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to administer the correct ordered medication form, follow professional standards of nursing practice and use appropriate infection control practices during medication administration. This was evident for 1 (Resident #90) of 5 residents observed during the medication administration task.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a dependent resident was properly groomed. This was evident for 1 (Resident #18) of 5 residents reviewed for ADLs care during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, review of a complaint, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide treatment/services to maintain vision. This is evident for 1 (Resident #130) of 2 residents reviewed for communication and sensory problems during the recertification and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care services by failing to label oxygen administration equipment. This was evident for 1 (Resident #163) of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to act upon a clinically significant medication irregularity identified by the consultant pharmacist for residents. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) out of 5 residents reviewed for medication regimen review during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% during the medication observation task. This was evident for 4 of 25 medications administered during the observation which resulted in a medication error rate of 16%.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to provide dental services for residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #13 and #122) of 2 residents reviewed for dental services during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain 1) Food service equipment in a manner that ensures sanitary food service operations and 2) Proper sanitation for the storage of food on the nursing units. This was evident during the initial tour of the kitchen and on 1of 3 nursing units observed for food storage and sanitation.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a therapy screening for 1 (Resident #17) of 28 residents reviewed for therapy services during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse immediately but not later than 2 hours after an allegation was made. This was evident for 1 (Resident #16) of 13 residents reviewed for a facility reported incident during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that each resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice by 1) failing to ensure orders for the resident's immediate care were confirmed with the physician and documented in the medical record, 2) failing to reconcile a resident's medications on admission, 3) failing to ensure medication was available in a timely manner for the facility to administer, and 4) failing to notify the physician when a resident was not given medication as prescribed. This was evident for 1 (Resident #20) of 16 residents reviewed for a complaint.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that prior to the installation of bed rails, the facility 1) failed to identify and use appropriate alternatives prior to installing or using bed rails, 2) failed to ensure the risks and benefits of bed rails were reviewed with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent for use of the bed rails, 3) failed to obtain a physician's order for the use of the bed rails and 4) failed develop a care plan with specific interventions for use of the bed rail. This was evident for 3 (Resident #8, #11, #28) of 3 residents reviewed for bed rails during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the provision of physician services 24 hours a day, in case of emergency. This was evident for 1 (Resident #14) of 16 residents reviewed for a complaint during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents were either admitted with an Advance Directive or offered one at the time of admission. This was evident for 4 (#9, #63, #64 and #118) out of 11 residents reviewed for Advance Directives. Advance directives are legal documents that provide instructions for medical care and only go into effect if you cannot communicate your own wishes. The two most common advance directives for health care are the living will and the durable power of attorney for health care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with a safe and homelike environment. This was evident for 6 (Resident #3, #8, #44, #67, #108 and #119) out of 66 residents' rooms and shared spaces observed during multiple tours of the facility during annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure the resident and/or families are invited to care plan meetings (Resident #89), 2) review and revise a Resident's care plan by a complete interdisciplinary team and after each quarterly and comprehensive assessment (Resident #22, #75, #113 #41), and 3) facilitate timely care plan conferences after a resident' s quarterly assessment to allow the resident and resident representative to participate in the care planning process (Resident #110). This was found evident for 6 (#22, #75, #113, #110, #41 and #89) out of 8 Residents reviewed for care planning during an annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and observation, the facility failed to ensure food was served at a palatable temperature. This was found to be evident for 6 (#70, #75, #89, #97, #119, #108) out of 66 residents interviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to store food and in a manner that maintains professional standards of food service safety. This practice had the potential to affect all residents eating food prepared in the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a dignified experience for a Resident during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) cares. This was found evident of 1 Resident (Resident #22) on a random observation during the initial tour.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to communicate their needs and to receive treatment, care, and services that promote the maintenance of one's own quality of life. This was evident for 1 (Resident #388) out of 1 residents investigated for self determination.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document wound assessments in a resident's medical record. This was found evident of 1 (Resident # 12) of 6 Residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to assist a Resident that required replacement of hearing aids with services for replacement. This was found evident for 1 (Resident #41) of 4 Residents reviewed for hearing and vision during an annual survey.
Inspectors wrotePast Non-compliance Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and an investigation into a complaint it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents were free of accidents. This was evident for 1 (#188) out of the 66 residents reviewed as part of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident had orders in place to maintain immediate care needs including: 1.) an order to turn and reposition every two hours for a resident with pressure injuries (Resident #111). 2.) an order for no blood pressure readings in the access limb of a hemodialysis resident (Resident #110), and 3.) a completed MOLST (Resident #74). This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #111, #110, & #74) out of 66 residents reviewed for physician services.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's medication orders were followed. This was evident for 1 (#63) out 5 residents that were selected for Medication Regimen review.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document an admission assessment within a resident's medical record. This was evident for 1 (Resident #117) out of 66 residents investigated during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1.) ensure that transmission-based precautions were followed by facility staff. This was evident for 1 (Staff #32) out of 1 staff observed during Covid testing, and 2.) maintain practices to help prevent the transmission of infections. This was evident for 1 of 2 meal tray observations completed on an annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) properly investigate an allegation of abuse, and 2) maintain documentation that an alleged violation of abuse was thoroughly investigated. This was found evident for 2 (Resident #113 and #110) of 9 residents reviewed for allegations of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to follow the procedures to evaluate for safety and have a physician order for self-administration of medications. This was found evident in 1 (Resident #75) out of 1 resident reviewed for self-administration of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to manage a resident's pain regimen following the physician ordered parameters. This was found to be evident for 1 (#102) out of 1 resident reviewed for administration of pain medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that their residents were free of accidents which resulted in harm to resident #2. This was evident for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure that the resident and the resident representative were provided a notice of transfer in writing and the Ombudsman was notified. This was evident for 3 (#3, #1, and #2) of 3 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure that the residents were oriented and prepared for a safe and orderly discharge. This was evident for 3 (#3, #1, and #2) of 3 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure that the resident and resident representative were provided a copy of the bed hold policy within 24 hours of the time of transfer. This was 3 (#3, #1, and #2) of 3 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to implement the off-hours on-call system for physicians when a resident status changed. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents (#10) when reviewed during a revisit survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility had delegated duties to their staff that were outside their scope of practice. This was evident for 4 (Staff #1, #12, #11, and #10) of 4 License Practical Nurses.
Inspectors wroteBased on the medical record and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to provide a Care Plan for Resident #25's continuing care, to the hospital where the resident was being sent. This was evident for 1 out of 2 residents investigated for hospitalization during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on the medical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide written notification to the appropriate parties, of Resident #25's transfer out to the hospital. This was evident for 1 out of 2 residents investigated for hospitalization during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on the medical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide required written notice for Resident #25, or the resident's Responsible Party (RP), of the bed hold policy during a transfer out of the facility. This was evident for 1 out of 2 residents investigated for hospitalization during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure the narcotic count for one narcotic prescribed for Resident #204 and one narcotic prescribed for Resident #123 was accurately documented. This was evident for 2 of 12 narcotics reviewed for reconciliation during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation it was determined that the facility staff failed to use appropriate infection control procedures while handling food for Resident #72. This was evident for 1 out of 38 residents observed during the survey process.
27 fire safety citations on file: 16 on November 25, 2025, 6 on February 2, 2024, 5 on April 17, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 11, 2023 | Fine | $7,443 |
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 | 0.52 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.20 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.94 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.11 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.9% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.48 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 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.46 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 | 0.52 | 3.72 | 3.20 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 139 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.48 | 0.55 | 3.64 | 3.07 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 140 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.49 | 0.49 | 3.65 | 3.10 | 0.5% | 0 of 92 | 136 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.46 | 0.46 | 3.61 | 3.08 | 0.1% | 0 of 91 | 140 |
| 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 | 12.5 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.1 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.1 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.3 | 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 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Ft Washington Rehabilitation and Wellness Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.7% 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. 184 eligible stays.
12.8% 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. 186 eligible stays.
8.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Maryland: 5 better, 6 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 102 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. 62 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. 95 residents counted.
2.9% 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. 95 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Maryland98.1% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 50 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. CMS links this home to Health Care Facility Management, LLC, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 3.8 stars overall.
| 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.