700 West 40th Street, Baltimore, MD 21211 · Baltimore City County · (410) 235-8860
170 certified beds, about 156 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215037 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 3, 2026, inspectors cited 18 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 58 health citations since August 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 4.45 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.81 of those hours.
37.5% 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 58 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled:Number of residents cited:Based on observation, record review, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain food service equipment in a manner that ensures sanitary food service operations to prevent possible foodborne illness. This was evident during the initial kitchen tour of the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and facility staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to have an accessible cord attached to the call light device in Resident bathrooms. This finding was found to be evident in 5 out of 34 Resident bathrooms observed on [NAME] Ground Nursing Unit which affected 5 (Resident #113, #115, #132, #161, and #172) out of 34 Residents reviewed for Resident Call System.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a pest-free environment for the residents. This was evident in 6 of 6 areas reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staff interviews and surveyor record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to document the offering and education of the formulation of an advance directive to Residents. This finding was found to be evident in 3 (Resident #144, #172 and #173) out of 9 Residents reviewed for advance directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the environment of the resident was kept clean, comfortable and sanitary. This was evident for Resident #14 during the annual re-certifications survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff and Resident interviews and surveyor record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to notify Residents/Resident Representatives in writing of the bed hold policy and document notification of the bed hold policy when Residents were transferred to the hospital. This finding was found to be evident in 2 (Resident #172 and #9) out of 5 Residents reviewed for discharge process.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to transmit a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days of completion of the assessment. This was evident for 1 (Resident #133) of 3 residents reviewed for assessments transmission during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staff interviews and surveyor record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately complete Minimum Data Set assessments (MDS) on Residents. This finding was found to be evident in 2 (Resident #26 and #171) out of 9 Residents reviewed for accurate coding of MDS assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that interdisciplinary care plans were reviewed and revised following a change in condition related to Resident falls and Resident treatments. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #143 and #92) out of 4 Residents reviewed for care planning during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) ensure an ordered procedure necessitated an outside scheduled appointment was completed, and 2) properly assess, evaluate, and implement physician recommendations for treatment of skin impairments. This was evident for 3 (Resident #109, #22, and #166) of 11 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. As evidenced by not evaluating the effectiveness of treatment orders or timely and accurately assessing wounds. This was evident for 1 (Resident #109) of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and surveyor record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide safe, appropriate respiratory care and services. This finding was found to be evident at the nursing station on [NAME] Ground Nursing Unit and in 2 (Resident #113 and #173) out of 2 Residents reviewed for usage of oxygen and storage of oxygen.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on medical record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to respond to recommendations made by consulting pharmacists in a timely manner. This was true for (Resident #13) reviewed during the annual re-certification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staff interviews and surveyor record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to follow a physician medication order for a Resident, failed to provide adequate side effects monitoring for Residents on psychotropic medications, and failed to ensure a Resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medication as evidenced by medical records lacking physician documentation of rationale for continued as needed psychotropic use, no documented monitoring of side effects, and no documented non-pharmacological interventions prior to medication administration. This finding was found to be evident in 4 (Resident #26, #33, #92 and #7 ) out of 5 Residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to assist a resident to obtain routine dental care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #2) of 2 residents reviewed for dental services.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the appropriate maintenance of the exterior trash compactor to prevent the harborage and infestation of pests. This was evident for 1 of 1 exterior trash compactor reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain infection prevention and control practices. This finding was found to be evident in review of a complaint related to linen availability, usage and storage in the facility during the annual recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain essential equipment in proper operating conditions. This was evident for 3 of 3 pieces of equipment reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, facility document, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect a resident from verbal abuse for 1 (Resident #6) of 8 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, facility document and policy review, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown source within two hours of being informed that the resident sustained a serious bodily injury for 1 (Resident #1) of 8 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the facility's kitchen, review of kitchen records, and interview of dietary staff it was determined the facility failed to: 1) ensure all dietary staff wore a hair restraint, 2) ensure stored foods were covered and labeled, and 3) ensure the dishwasher was maintaining the minimum wash temperature for sanitization of dishes. These deficient practices have the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined the facility failed to accurately address reporting timeframes for allegations of abuse in their facility policies. This was evident during the surveyor's review of a facility reported incident, MD#00188565 and has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility reports, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1) report misappropriation of a residents' fund, and 2) report an allegation of abuse within 2 hours of the allegation to the regulatory agency, the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ). This was evident for 4 (#75, #310, #69, #93) of 6 residents reviewed for abuse during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident's call device was accessible to the resident. This was evident for 1 (#145) out of 2 residents reviewed for call device functioning during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a facility reported incident (MD #188565), record review and staff interviews it was determined the facility failed to take measures to protect the resident during an abuse investigation. This was evident for 1 (Resident #310) out of 6 residents reviewed for abuse during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days of completion and create a discharge assessment. This was evident for 3 (Residents #64, #146 and #148) of 3 residents reviewed for resident assessments during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document oral assessment in a resident's medical record and code the resident's oral status accurately on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This was evident for 1 (Resident #12) of 3 residents reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop, initiate, and ensure a care plan for a resident was comprehensive and person centered. This was evident for 3 (#50, # 312, #12) of 58 residents reviewed during a recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on residents' representative interviews, resident record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an interdisciplinary care plan with effective interventions to prevent the repeated removal of gastronomy tubes. This was evident for one (Resident #68) of 58 residents reviewed for care plans during the recertification/complaint survey process. Findings Include: A gastronomy tube (g-tube) is inserted through the abdomen's wall into the stomach. The g-tube allows air and fluid to leave the stomach and can be used to give medication and fluids to the resident. On 10/8/2024 at 11:51 AM, an interview with Resident #68's representative revealed that the resident had 5 incidents that required multiple g-tube replacements within an approximate 5-month period. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) follow professional standards of nursing practice when administering medications to residents and 2) administer the correct ordered medication form to the resident. It was evident for 1(Resident # 318) of 3 residents reviewed during medication administration during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a complaint incident MD00209605, record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for a dependent resident. This was evident for 1 (resident #66) of 4 residents reviewed for ADL care during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of residents' medical records and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for one (Resident #165) out of one resident who was reviewed for quality of care/ treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a complaint investigation, record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to order appropriate intervention and treatments for the maintenance of a Urostomy. This was evident for 1 (Resident #164) of 1 resident reviewed for urostomy during the recertification/complaint survey. The findings Include: A urostomy is an opening in the belly made during surgery to redirect urine away from a bladder that's not working as it should. A special bag called urostomy bags are used to collect urine from the urostomy. On 10/15/24 at 9:38 AM, review of a complaint incident MD00194576 revealed that Resident #164, who had a urostomy, complained that her urine bag was leaking near the surgical wound and that the bag was left full of waste from 5:30 AM to 10:30 AM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews, resident and staff interviews, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that a resident was given pain medication consistent with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 (Resident #16) of 4 residents reviewed for pain management during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to administer the correct ordered medication form to the resident. It was evident for 1(Resident #318) of 3 residents reviewed during the medication administration during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident was free from unnecessary antibiotic use. This was evident for 1 (Resident #19) of 3 residents reviewed for antibiotic use while performing infection control tasks during the recertification/complaint survey. Findings Include: According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) is a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It can be very contagious and can spread quickly. The FDA has authorized or approved several antiviral medications to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in people who are more likely to get very sick. Antiviral medications target specific parts of the virus to stop it from multiplying in the body once someone is infected, helping to prevent severe illness and death. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on environmental observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system to prevent and control infections for all residents, staff, volunteers and visitors by posting precaution signs in front of residents' rooms to prevent the transmission of infections. This is evident for 3 (Resident #66, #68, #85) of 32 residents reviewed for infection precaution signs during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have documented evidence to support that the facility assessed the vaccination status of the influenza and Pneumococcal of each resident as required. This is evident for 3 (Resident #16, #127, and #152) of 5 randomly selected resident records reviewed for the influenza and pneumococcal vaccination records during the recertification/complaint survey. Findings Include: Influenza (Flu) vaccines are used to help prevent influenza. Influenza (Flu) is a contagious disease that spreads around the United States every year, usually between October and May. Anyone can get the flu, but it is more dangerous for some people. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on the record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have documentation to support that the facility provided COVID-19 vaccine education regarding the benefits, risks, and potential side effects of the vaccines. This is evident for 1 (Resident #129) of 5 randomly selected residents reviewed for COVID-19 vaccination records during the recertification/complaint survey. Findings Include: On 10/11/24 at 12:51 PM, a review of Resident #129's vaccination records revealed that upon the resident's admission in March 2023, the resident refused the COVID-19 vaccine; however, a review of Resident #129's immunization report in the electronic medical record, documented the vaccination education for the COVID-19 as no. Thus, revealed that the vaccination education was not provided to the resident or their representative. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide care to promote the highest well-being for Residents (#106, #161 and #172). This was evident for 3 of 69 residents selected for review of quality of care during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide Residents (#122) with the most dignified existence related to meals. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dignity during the survey process and 1 of 69 residents selected for review during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the physician of weight gain as ordered for Residents (#45 and #172). This was evident for 2 of 2 residents selected for review of notification and 2 of 69 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and resident interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to code the Resident (#172) medications accurately on the Minimum Data Set (MDS). This was evident for 1 of 69 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission to the facility. This was evident for 1 (Residents #407) of 69 residents reviewed during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wrote2) On 8/14/2019 Resident #184's medical record was reviewed and revealed and Minimum Data Set (MDS) admission Assessment from 8/29/2018. An MDS Assessment is a comprehensive assessment of a residents functional capabilities and health needs and are completed upon admission, discharge, quarterly, annually and when the resident experiences a significant change in condition. The MDS from 8/29/2018 specified that Resident #184 required Two + persons physical assist when bathing. Resident #184's Care Plan from 8/31/2018 was reviewed and under interventions for bathing/showering stated The resident requires (one staff assistance) with (bathing/showering) and as necessary. contrary to the resident's admission MDS assessment which specified Two + persons physical assist.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to have an interdisplinary team review and revise a care plan (#63). This was evident for 1 of 11 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to administer a medication to Resident (#103) in accordance with the standard of practice. This was evident for 1 of 6 residents observed for medication pass and 1 of 36 opportunities for medication error.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to provide treatment/services to prevent/heal pressure ulcers to (Resident #407). This is evident for 1 of 5 Residents selected for review of pressure ulcers during the survey process. A pressure ulcer (also known as pressure sore or decubitus ulcer) is any lesion caused by unrelieved pressure that results in damage to the underlying tissue. Pressure ulcers are staged according to their severity from Stage I (area of persistent redness), Stage II (superficial loss of skin such as an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater), Stage III (full thickness skin loss involving damage to subcutaneous tissue presenting as a deep crater), and Stage IV (full thickness skin loss with extensive damage to muscle, bone, or tendon).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined the nursing staff failed to follow physician orders and the established care plan to provide 1:1 supervision during meals to prevent a choking hazard (Resident #63). This was evident for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for accident hazards.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide nutritional services to Residents (#122 and #188) as ordered. This was evident for 2 of 11 residents selected for review of nutrition and 2 of 69 residents selected for review during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to clarify a pain medication order (Resident#69) to specify where the pain patch should be administered. This was evident for 1 of 4 residents selected for pain assessment and 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to act upon the consultant pharmacist recommendation in a timely manner for Residents (#4) and the consultant pharmacist failed to conduct a thorough medical record review to identify and bring to the facility staff's attention Resident (#172) receiving Nystatin cream for 4 months. This was evident for 2 of 6 residents selected for unnecessary medication review during the annual survey process and 2 out of 69 residents selected for review during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff administered pain medication to a resident who was not in pain (#124). This was evident for 1 resident out of 5 reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to obtain laboratory blood test as ordered for Resident (#45). This was evident for 1 of 69 residents selected for review of laboratory results during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain a medical record in the most accurate form for a resident (#158). This was evident for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for accurate medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to promote an environment that decreased the potential of transmission of communicable diseases or infections for Resident (#307). This was evident for observation of meal delivery of breakfast on the 2 north nursing unit and 1 out of 69 residents selected for review of infection control during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that facility staff failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
14 fire safety citations on file: 5 on March 3, 2026, 9 on October 22, 2024.
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) | 4.45 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.05 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.49 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.14 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 37.5% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 34.2% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.52 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 4.61 on weekdays and 4.05 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 15.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.77 in April to June 2025 to 4.45 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 | 4.45 | 0.81 | 4.61 | 4.05 | 15.8% | 0 of 90 | 156 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.48 | 0.87 | 4.66 | 4.02 | 14.4% | 0 of 92 | 156 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.52 | 0.97 | 4.72 | 4.00 | 12.5% | 0 of 92 | 155 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.77 | 1.12 | 5.02 | 4.16 | 13.6% | 0 of 91 | 151 |
| 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 | 25.2 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 46.7 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.2 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.4 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.8 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.9 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 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 Keswick Multi-Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (63.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
63.5% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Maryland: 90 better, 29 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 802 eligible stays.
11.7% 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. 831 eligible stays.
4.6% this home
Better 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. 473 eligible stays.
58.4% 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. 363 residents counted.
0.7% 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. 447 residents counted.
3.5% 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. 447 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. 96 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: KESWICK MULTI CARE CENTER INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figueroa, Regina | Direct ownership interest | Individual | 04/10/2023 | |
| Briscoe, Elizabeth | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2019 | |
| Deeley, Karen | Corporate director | Individual | 06/30/2017 | |
| Diegelman, Ronald | Corporate director | Individual | 04/24/2015 | |
| Floyd Prue, Nancy | Corporate director | Individual | 09/26/2017 | |
| Graning, Kathryn | Corporate director | Individual | 11/21/2017 | |
| Hemelt, Matthew | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2018 | |
| Hooper, Jr., Lawrence | Corporate director | Individual | 02/08/2019 | |
| Magaziner, Jay | Corporate director | Individual | 06/30/2017 | |
| Rockstroh, Matt | Corporate director | Individual | 04/24/2015 | |
| Weiss, John | Corporate director | Individual | 11/20/2014 | |
| Gommel, Eric | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/09/2024 | |
| McShea Tinney, Aileen | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/27/2021 | |
| Flagship Rehabilitation, Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/15/2015 | |
| Unidine Corporation | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/2012 | |
| Debruyn, Thjodie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/14/2013 | |
| Figueroa, Regina | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/10/2023 | |
| Robinson, April | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/19/2001 | |
| Wagara, Caroline | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/11/2019 | |
| Friends Services for the Aging | Trustee of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2015 | |
| C360, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/17/2023 | |
| Connectrn, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2020 | |
| Flagship Rehabilitation, Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/07/2025 | |
| Friends Services for the Aging | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/07/2025 | |
| Gross Mendelsohn and Associates, Pa | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2009 | |
| Kipkoe, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/03/2020 | |
| Loving Care Services, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/29/2021 | |
| Marquette Associates, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2010 | |
| Ntiva, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/15/2022 | |
| Patient Trust Healthcare Services, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2025 | |
| Pnc Bank | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/02/2004 | |
| Unidine Corporation | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/07/2025 | |
| Figueroa, Regina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/06/2025 | |
| Saluja, Daljeet | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/06/2025 |
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.