9106 Pineview Lane, Clinton, MD 20735 · Prince Georges County · (410) 880-4353
180 certified beds, about 165 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1999
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215328 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 7, 2025, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 35 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 4.14 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.15 of those hours.
39.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Future Care/Lifebridge Health, an affiliated group of 18 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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, reviews of administrative and all pertinent documents, and interviews with facility staff members, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Resident #1's representative with a copy of the resident's medical record timely. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, reviews of medical records and all pertinent documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify 1) Resident #1's representative in a timely manner after a significant change occurred, and 2) immediately notify a resident's physician and representative when a resident developed tachycardia. This was evident for 2 (Resident #1 and #2) of 2 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of a complaint, a closed medical record and all pertinent documents, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a physician's orders to document the output from a Foley catheter was completed. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident medical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents or family representatives with an opportunity to formulate an Advanced Directive. This was evident for 6 (Residents #5, #6, #18, #37, #50 and #56) out of 9 residents reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to: 1) Ensure that the kitchen is clean and free of dirty dishes; 2) Ensure that the low temp dish wash machine maintained the required temperatures for the wash and rinse cycle; 3) Ensure that expired foods were discarded; 4) Remove all standing water located on the floor in the kitchen. This was found to be evident during an initial and follow-up tour of the kitchen survey has the potential to impact residents receiving food prepared in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews it was determined the facility failed to: 1) accurately reflect on its facility matrix the number of residents on transmissions precautions, and/or contact precautions, and/or the number of facility acquired pressure ulcers and/or pressure ulcers acquired during a resident's admission. This was evident to be true for the three submissions of the facility matrix presented to the survey team; 2) The facility failed to document the start times on the continuous tube feeding bag. This was evident for 1 (Resident #166) of 2 residents with continuous tube feedings; 3) update residents infection control status in the electronic medical record. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) completed required annual in-service training timely. This was evident for 3 (GNA #16, #31, and #34) out of 4 employee records reviewed for required in-service training during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe environment in residents' rooms. This was evident for 3 out of 26 rooms observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews it was determined the facility failed to: 1) develop a comprehensive care plan that addressed the resident's preference for future discharge. This was determined to be true for 1 (Resident #14) out of 34 residents reviewed for discharge planning ; 2) develop and implement a comprehensive care plan that addressed the resident's need for oral hygiene care while on a NPO status. This was evident for 1 (Resident #34) out of 2 residents reviewed for a comprehensive care plan; 3) follow the resident care plan of ensuring that a resident who is dependent on staff for assistance with transfers receives assistance out of bed. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident # 3) of 46 residents reviewed; 4) develop a person-centered care plan for a resident who had a diagnosis of insomnia. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a person-centered care plan was reviewed and revised for a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #4) out of 37 resident care plans reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide oral hygiene care to residents with nothing by mouth (NPO) status. This was evident for 1 (Resident #34) out of 2 residents observed during the survey. On 8/01/2025 at 9:40 AM, while speaking with Resident #34, the surveyor noted the resident's breath smelled badly and their mouth was very dry, and their lips were cracked. On 8/04/2025 at 9:26 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #34 alert and smiling, and that Resident #34's lips were dry and cracked. After leaving the resident, the surveyor went to speak with the GNA who works with the resident. GNA #32 was asked if she does oral hygiene care for the residents who are NPO. GNA #32 responded that she does oral care when she does her ADLs in the morning with the resident and again in the afternoon before leaving for the day. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with residents, the facility failed to prepare meals that were attractive, flavorful, and appetizing to the residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #59 and #151) residents out of 5 interviewed for meals during survey. On 7/30/2025 at 11:31 AM, the surveyor spoke with Resident #151 about the food at the facility. Resident #151 stated that the food just isn't that good. I don't eat most of my meals. Resident #151 was unable to provide examples of what they meant. On 8/01/2025 at 1:45 PM, Resident #59 was interviewed about the food at the facility. Resident #59 complained that the food is terrible, with no taste. Resident #59 also stated that they (the facility) need someone better to cook the food. It's either not cooked enough or overcooked. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure infection control and prevention policies and procedures were carried out by its employees. This was determined to be true for one (Resident #86) out of six residents reviewed for infection control and prevention during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of residents medical records, facility COVID-19 testing documentation, facility policy interview with facility staff, and interview with residents, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and follow a system of testing residents for COVID-19 according to the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the facility's own policies during an outbreak of COVID-19. This deficient practice had the potential to impact all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents and policies it was determined that the facility failed to take appropriate actions to thoroughly investigate and follow up on a reported allegation of abuse (Resident # 14). This was evident for 1 of 2 Facility Reported Incidents (FRI) reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents and policies it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from abuse or create a safe environment by failing to implement the facility policy on abuse as evidenced by failing to complete in-services on all employees after alleged incidents of abuse occurred in the facility, failing to appropriately investigate an allegation of abuse, and failing to follow-up with a resident grievance. This was found to be true in 1 (Resident #14) of 2 residents reviewed for abuse investigations.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, facility policy and training record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their policy on abuse as evidenced by failing to complete in-services on all employees after alleged incidents of abuse occurred in the facility. This was evident during the review of 1 of 2 of 2 Facility Reported Incidents (FRI) on abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and review of pertinent facility documents and policies it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an abuse allegation. This was evident for 2 of 9 Facility Reported Incidents (FRI) reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure residents or their responsible party and the local Ombudsman, received written notification of a transfer to the hospital. This was evident for 2 (Resident #58 and Resident #105) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the investigative stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised as required. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #28 and Resident #64) out of 33 residents reviewed for care plans during the Annual Survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview with staff, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an intervention, determined to be necessary, for a resident who was identified as a fall risk. This was evident of 1 of 2 residents (Resident #18) reviewed for accidents during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with staff and review of medical records and the facility's policies, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) maintain acceptable parameters of nutrition for a resident by failing to implement nutritional recommendations and, 2) effectively address significant weight loss. This was evident of 1 of 11 residents (Resident #62) reviewed for nutrition during the annual survey. This deficient practice affected a resident who had consistent weight loss throughout a two-month stay.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with staff and review of residents' medical records, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatments to prevent complications for a resident who required enteral nutrition. This was evident by the facility replacing a resident's gastrostomy tube without appropriate physician's orders and failing to document that gastrostomy tube placement. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #18) reviewed for tube feeding during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to complete a risk assessment prior to the use of the siderails. This was evident of 1 of 2 Residents (Resident #18) reviewed for accidents during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure food was properly prepared for residents with a diet order for pureed food. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents who received pureed food.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with Resident #76 the facility failed to deliver low carbohydrate diet recommended for a Resident #76 with diabetes. This was evident for 2 of 3 (Resident #76) residents reviewed for preferences during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview and 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 interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to store and prepare food in a manner that maintains professional standards of food service safety. This practice had the potential to affect all residents eating food prepared by the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that facility staff wore face masks, respirators, and face shields in an appropriate manner during a COVID-19 outbreak. This was evident on 3 of 18 days of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation 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 the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a list of all staff persons and identify their COVID-19 vaccination status as vaccinated, exempt, non-exempt, or temporarily delayed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident medical records, it was determined that the facility failed to identify a reason for declination for influenza and pneumonia vaccinations offered to residents. This was evident for 6 of 6 declination forms reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment. This was evident in 3 out of 40 resident's rooms with spa shower room on the 3rd floor nursing unit during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview with resident and responsible party, the facility failed to provide a water cup for Resident # 11 or refill his water cup consistently. This was evident for 1 out of 40 residents observed during the interview and observational part of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a bathroom faucet mechanism used in the room of Resident #74 was in proper working condition. This was evident in 1 of 4 rooms where handwashing was observed.
33 fire safety citations on file: 11 on August 7, 2025, 17 on October 26, 2022, 5 on January 16, 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) | 4.14 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.15 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.68 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.05 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.94 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.2% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.8% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 5.42 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 4.32 on weekdays and 3.68 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.39 in April to June 2025 to 4.14 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 | 4.14 | 1.15 | 4.32 | 3.68 | 0.3% | 0 of 90 | 165 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.09 | 1.06 | 4.27 | 3.64 | 0.2% | 0 of 92 | 163 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.46 | 1.06 | 4.68 | 3.89 | 0.2% | 0 of 92 | 163 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.39 | 1.02 | 4.62 | 3.82 | 0.2% | 0 of 91 | 165 |
| 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 | 5.8 | 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 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.1 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.6 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.3 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Future Care Pineview's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.4% 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. 302 eligible stays.
14.4% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Maryland: 0 better, 41 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 292 eligible stays.
11.3% this home
Worse than 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. 169 eligible stays.
51.6% 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. 95 residents counted.
0.5% this home
Median of homes: Maryland0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 208 residents counted.
0.8% 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. 208 residents counted.
98.6% 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. 73 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: PINEVIEW EXTENDED CARE CENTRE, INC.. CMS links this home to Future Care/Lifebridge Health, a group of 18 nursing homes averaging 3.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Attmon Trust Ua Dtd 122686 Attmon Phyllis Ttee | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 8% | 06/01/2009 |
| Powers, Mark | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 12% | 12/01/2025 |
| Alvin Powers Residuary Trust Fbo Jeffrey Powers | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2025 | |
| Alvin Powers Residuary Trust Fbo Mark Powers | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 06/01/2009 | |
| Powers, Jeffrey | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/01/2025 | |
| Attman, Gary | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Attman, Leonard | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Finglass, Brian | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Future Care Health & Management of Pineview Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2009 | |
| Finglass, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Spadaro, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/05/2013 | |
| Alvin Powers Residuary Trust Fbo Jeffrey Powers | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2025 | |
| Alvin Powers Residuary Trust Fbo Mark Powers | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2025 | |
| Clinton Nursing Home Limited Partnership | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2009 | |
| Future Care Health & Management of Pineview Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/19/2025 | |
| Future Care Health and Management Corporation | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/19/2025 | |
| Jeffrey Attmon Trust Ua Dtd 122686 Attmon Phyllis Ttee | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2009 | |
| Lag Associates Limited Partnership | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2009 | |
| Leonard J Attman Tr Ua Fbo Wende Attman Phyllis Ttee | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2009 | |
| Shellye Attman Gilden Tr Ua Dtd Attman Phyllis Ttee | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2009 | |
| Attman, Gary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Attman, Jeffrey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Attman, Leonard | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Finglass, Brian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Gilden, Shellye | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Levitas, Wende | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2009 | |
| Powers, Jeffrey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2025 | |
| Powers, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2025 | |
| Spadaro, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/05/2013 |
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.