Home / Maryland / Cockeysville
300 International Circle, Cockeysville, MD 21030 · Baltimore County · (410) 527-1111
88 certified beds, about 68 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2014
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215361 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 2, 2025, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 66 health citations since October 2018, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,420 in the last three years; the largest was $16,420, and the latest is dated October 21, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.06 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.02 of those hours.
32.3% 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 66 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of complaint #2979118, resident records, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to adhere to professional standards of practice when ordering medications for newly admitted residents. This was found to be evident for 1 (#78) out of 1 resident reviewed for medications during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff adherence to appropriate infection control measures consistent with accepted standards of practices during: 1) medication administration for 1 (Resident #26) out of 4 resident observations of medication administration; 2) equipment cleaning between resident use for 1 (Resident #63) out of 4 resident observations of medication administration; 3) staff performance of hand hygiene for 1 (Resident #20) out of 2 residents reviewed for accidents; and 4) the facility failed to ensure measures to minimize the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in the building water system by having a documented water management program which has the potential to impact all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper storage with regards to reconciling expired medications and storing all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments. This was evident for 3 of 3 medication storage areas observed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to: 1.) ensure the menu was followed, and 2.) meet resident choices based on his/her preferences. This was evident for: 1.) 7 out of 7 residents who had ordered bread sticks on their menu for the lunch meal occurring on 5/29/25 and 2.) 1 (Resident #5) out of 2 residents reviewed for food during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on personnel record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure that Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA) received at least 12 hours of in-service training annually. This was evident for 3 (GNAs #16, 17, and 18) out of 3 GNA's reviewed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure maintenance of a homelike environment. This was evident for 3 (#30, #13, and #22) out of 18 resident's rooms observed during the surveyor's initial tour during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was monitored for side effects of psychotropic medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident #50) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of abuse was timely reported. This was evident for 1 (#MD00212201) out of 3 facility reported incidents reviewed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated. This was evident for 1 (#MD00212201) out of 3 facility reported incidents reviewed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to review and revise a quarterly comprehensive care plan by all interdisciplinary team members. This was evident for 1 (Resident #21) out of 1 residents reviewed for care planning during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review it was determined the facility failed to take measures to ensure a resident was free from accident hazards. This was evident for 1 (Resident #20) out of 2 residents reviewed for accidents during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper reconciliation of expired controlled drug medications during medication administration and drug record keeping for the resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #33) out of 6 residents reviewed for medication storage during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview it was determined that the facility failed to follow prescriber's orders and manufacturer's specifications regarding medication preparation during medication administration for the resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #13) out of 4 residents observed for medication administration during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure safe and separate storage of food brought in by family or visitors for residents. This was evident for 1 out of 2 Central Supply Room refrigerators observed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to follow the standard of practice of verifying medication doses when ordering and administering medication. This was evident during the review of a facility reported incident where a resident was administered an inappropriate dose of morphine. This was evident for 1 of 3 Residents reviewed (#1) for deaths. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #1. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following this incident. The facility's plan and action were verified during this survey, therefore this deficiency will be cited as past noncompliance. The date of correction was [DATE].
Inspectors wroteBased on facility document review and interview, it was determined that the facility administration failed to follow the guidelines for abuse investigation which included conducting complete and thorough investigations, identifying abuse and putting in appropriate interventions to prevent further occurrences of abuse. These failures placed all residents at risk for abuse. This was evident for 4 of 4 (#6, #7, #2 and #10) facility reported incidents reviewed completed by the previous facility Director of Nursing.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to enhance a resident's dignity. This was evident during the review of a facility reported incident regarding activities of daily living care 2 of 30 (#6, R4). This failure placed residents at risk of their rights being violated and not upheld.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and interview with staff it was determine the facility staff failed to ensure that allegations involving abuse were reported to the Administrator of the facility and the State Agency no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made and results of all investigations were reported within 5 working days. This was evident in 3 of 26 (#6, #2 and #10) facility reported incidents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate allegations related to potential abuse and injuries of unknown origin. This was evident during the review of 5 of 30 (#4, #6, #7, #10, #25 ) incidents requiring facility reports and investigations.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to appropriately review a medication order and administer medication according to professional standards. This was evident for 1 of 3 facility reported incidents reviewed regarding medication management (Resident #1).
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure adequate supervision while positioning a resident in bed during the provision of care. This deficient practice resulted in the Resident #17 falling out of bed. This was evident for 1 (17) of 1 resident reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor a resident's weight loss and nutritional status. This was evident for 1 of 30 (resident #30) residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review of a facility reported incident and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address residents pain. This was evident for 2 of 5 (#1 and #17) residents reviewed for incidents of injuries with pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review of a facility reported incident and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a physician was responsive to the emergency needs of residents on a 24-hour basis. This was evident during the review of 1 of 5 (#1) incidents where the physician was contacted after hours.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, a facility provider failed to refer a resident's case to a dietitian when the resident required additional supplementation (resident #30). This was evident for 1 of 30 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person centered care plans that were resident specific, with measurable objectives and goals. This was evident for 8 (#57, #25, #31, #54, #369, #9, #36, #26) of 35 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the facility's kitchen food services, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain food service equipment in a manner that ensures sanitary food service operations. This was identified while observing the facility's dish washing machine in operation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility records and interview with staff, it was determined the facility failed to revise and document an accurate up-to-date facility-wide assessment. This was evident during review of the sufficient and competent nurse staffing task of the annual survey. This had the potential to affect all residents within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 3 (#54, #71, #36) of 35 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to meet professional standards by 1) failing to follow the 5 rights of medication administration by not confirming a resident's name prior to the administration of medications, 2) failing to offer water to a resident taking 8 medications, 3) documenting that a medication was administered when it was not observed to be administered, 4) documenting that a resident was receiving oxygen continuously when the resident was not using oxygen, 5) documenting that TED stockings were worn when they were not observed on the resident, 6) failing to follow physician's orders for blood pressure medications that had parameters for administration, and 7) documenting the administration of a pain medication that was not removed from the supply, and staff removal of a dose of narcotic pain [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive care plan as evidenced by: 1) failure to follow a physician order to obtain vital signs every shift for 7 days; 2) failure to ensure a heart rate was obtained and recorded when a medication with ordered parameters was administered; 3) failure to provide assistance with meals as indicated by the nursing assessment and included as an intervention in the care plan; 4) failure to administer pain medication as ordered for a resident with a broken hip on at least 13 occasions over a 26 day period; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physicians reviewed the resident's total plan of care, completed, and signed orders during each visit; and ensure that the primary care physician's notes were placed in the resident's medical record in a timely manner This was found to be evident for 4 out of 25 residents (Resident #9, #26, #8, #22) reviewed during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility records and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff demonstrated competencies in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs. All residents can be affected as competency skill sets should be based on resident care, safety and services delivered.
Inspectors wroteBased on medication administration observation, medical record and facility documentation review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent for 3 (#57, #49, #44) of 4 residents observed with 3 errors out of 27 medication administration opportunities which resulted in an error rate of 11.11% by 2 licensed practical nurses (LPN #3, LPN #4) and 1 certified medicine aide (CMA #5) that were observed during medication administration during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident was free of significant medication errors as evidenced by the nursing staff's 1) failure to hold a blood pressure medication when the blood pressure values were outside of the parameters to administer the medication and 2) failure to administer a blood pressure medication when the parameters indicated the medication should be administered. This was evident 2 (#369, #31) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the annual survey.
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 and failed to ensure that geriatric nursing assistant (GNA) documentation was readily accessible. This was evident for 8 (#15, #25, #31, #57, #54, #169, #9, #22) of 35 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an effective infection prevention and control program by 1) failing to follow infection prevention and control guidelines by not keeping the doors closed of isolated residents on droplet and contact precautions, 2) failing to ensure that staff utilized personal protective equipment (PPE) in a manner that met minimum standards and minimized risk for infectious spread and, 3) failing to ensure that signage was outside of each resident's room who was on isolation indicating all types of isolation the resident was on, and what PPE was required prior to entering the room. Failing to utilize proper infection control signage was identified for 2 (Resident #172, #56) of 35 residents reviewed during the annual survey. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure residents' COVID test results were kept in the residents' medical records. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #26, #25) of 2 residents reviewed for COVID-19 during the annual survey, but was determined to be a facility wide practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to notify the physician of blood pressure readings outside of physician ordered parameters. This was evident for 2 (Resident #369, #31) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with the facility's staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide notice to residents informing them that Medicare may deny payments for procedures or treatments and that residents may be personally responsible for full payment. This was evident for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notification during the survey (Resident #4 and #65).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and documentation review, it was determined that facility staff failed to promote care for a resident in an environment that maintains or enhances each resident's dignity and privacy. This was evident for 2 (#54, #25) of 2 residents observed on the COVID unit during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records, facility investigation documentation and interview, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to ensure that an injury of unknown origin was reported to the survey and certification agency and 2) failed to report allegations of abuse within 2 hours of the allegation to the regulatory agency, the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ). This was found to be evident for 1 out of three residents (Resident #169) reviewed for accidents and for 2 (#15, #120) of 7 residents reviewed for abuse during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility reported incident investigations and interview, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse. This was evident for 2 (#120, #121) of 7 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to orient, prepare, and document a resident's preparation for a transfer to the hospital. This was identified for 1 (#54) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews with staff and a resident, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that an interdisciplinary team, which included the resident and or the residents representatives, contributed to the resident's comprehensive care plan as evidenced by the failure to conduct a quarterly care plan meeting. This was identified for 1 (#8) of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide activity services to meet the needs of the resident. This was found to be evident for one out of one resident (Resident #36) reviewed for activities during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that dressing changes were completed as ordered for an open area on the resident's coccyx (bony structure at bottom of spine). This was found to be evident for 1( #169) out of 25 residents reviewed during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records, facility investigation documentation and interview, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to ensure unwitnessed falls were thoroughly investigated for 1 out of 3 residents (Resident #169) reviewed for accidents during the survey, and 2) failed to provide a physician ordered safety device for 1 of one out of the twenty five residents (Resident #8) reviewed during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility 1) failed to follow physician's orders for the administration of oxygen, 2) falsely documented that the resident was receiving oxygen when the resident was observed not receiving oxygen and 3) failed to develop and implement a person centered comprehensive care plan with resident centered goals for respiratory care to include oxygen therapy. This was evident for 1 (#57) of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory care during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to administer pain medication as ordered for a resident with a broken hip on at least 13 occassions over a 26 day period. This was found to be evident for one out of the twenty five residents (Resident #169) reviewed during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the interdisciplinary team had determined that the resident was safe to self administer medications prior to allowing the resident to keep inhalers for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and nasal spray for allergies at the bedside; failed to develop a care plan to address the resident's self administration of medications and failed to ensure that the physician order specified which medications were to be kept at the resident's bedside for self administration. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 6 residents (Resident #36) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and facility documentation review, it was determined that facility staff failed to keep medication carts locked when unattended. This was evident on 1 of 2 nursing units observed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, diet slips, and staff interview, it was determined that a resident was receiving a therapeutic diet that was not prescribed by a physician. This was evident for 1 (resident #8) of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of daily staffing records, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to post the total number and actual hours worked by categories of Registered nurses, Licensed practical nurses, and Certified nursing aides per shift and failed to have the staff data requirements available in an accurate, clear and readable format. It was identified that the facility did not have staffing information readily available in a readable format for residents and visitors, for 9 out of 9 days of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of a transfer/discharge of a resident along with the reason for the transfer. This was evident for 2 (#54, #39) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of the bed hold policy upon transfer of a resident to an acute care facility. This was evident for 2 (#54, #39 ) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff and resident interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a resident with the most dignified existence (Resident #42). This was evident for 1 of 30 residents selected for review during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify a resident/resident representative in writing of a room change. This was evident for 1 (#38) of 30 residents reviewed during an annual re-certification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure that the resident and resident's representative were notified in writing of the resident's transfer and the rationale for the transfer to an acute care facility. This was evident for 1 of 30 (Resident #70) residents reviewed during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and resident and staff interviews it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that dependent resident's personal hygiene needs were adequately met by offering and providing showers as scheduled. This was evident for 1 of 30 (Resident #42) residents reviewed during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a medical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility nursing staff failed to 1) obtain a dermatology consult for a resident, and 2) obtain weekly weights as ordered by the physician. This was evident for 2 (#36 and #8) of 30 residents reviewed during an annual re-certification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview the facility staff failed to recognize and evaluate the nutrition needs of residents (Residents #13, #29, and #51). This was evident for 3 out of 31 resident reviewed during the investigation phase of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, resident and staff interview, the facility staff and pharmacy failed to provide medications as ordered by the physician (Resident #7). This was evident for 1 out of 30 residents reviewed during the investigation phase of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to obtain blood pressures for a medication with parameters as ordered by the physician for a resident (Resident #29). This was evident for 1 out of 30 residents reviewed during the investigation phase of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide safe and sanitary conditions to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. This was evident for 1 (#51) of 30 residents reviewed during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to maintain the Resident call bell system in safe operating condition. This was evident during the initial tour of the facility and throughout the survey.
7 fire safety citations on file: 7 on June 2, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 21, 2024 | Fine | $16,420 |
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) | 4.06 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.02 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.85 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.18 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.86 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 32.3% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.61 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 4.15 on weekdays and 3.85 on weekends, 7% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.71 in April to June 2025 to 4.06 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 | 4.06 | 1.02 | 4.15 | 3.85 | 2.8% | 0 of 90 | 68 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.96 | 0.93 | 3.99 | 3.86 | 2.4% | 0 of 92 | 68 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.76 | 0.90 | 3.81 | 3.64 | 4.9% | 0 of 92 | 70 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.71 | 0.90 | 3.77 | 3.55 | 12.2% | 0 of 91 | 67 |
| 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 | 17.7 | 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 | 5.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.4 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.0 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.8 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.0 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Maryland Masonic Homes Ltd's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (67.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
67.2% 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. 381 eligible stays.
13.7% 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. 396 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 256 eligible stays.
58.7% this home
Median of homes: Maryland61.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 138 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. 185 residents counted.
2.5% 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. 184 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. 52 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: THE GRAND LODGE OF ANCIENT FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS OF MARYLAND.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Houck, Tammie | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/27/2015 | |
| Beckhardt, Charles | Corporate director | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Cordish, Stuart | Corporate director | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Herold, John | Corporate director | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Lee, Carl | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2014 | |
| Reynolds, Robert | Corporate director | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Sandy, David | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2014 | |
| Taylor, Kenneth | Corporate director | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Vourvoulas, Kostas | Corporate director | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Warns, Charles | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2014 | |
| Watson, Randall | Corporate director | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Naegele, Richard | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Vourvoulas, Kostas | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Maryland Masonic Homes,ltd | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/01/2018 | |
| Houck, Tammie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/27/2014 | |
| Taylor, Kenneth | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/20/2016 | |
| Vourvoulas, Kostas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/20/2016 |
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.