48 Tarn Terrace, Frostburg, MD 21532 · Allegany County · (301) 689-1391
88 certified beds, about 84 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215277 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 6, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 65 health citations since September 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $48,227 in the last three years; the largest was $16,562, and the latest is dated November 7, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.50 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.75 of those hours.
48.4% 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 65 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide the required information to the resident and their representatives at the time of discharge to the hospital; and failed to ensure required documents were sent with the resident to the hospital at the time of transfer. This was found to be evident for two (Resident #6 and #9) out of three residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to treat residents with respect and dignity, as evidenced by failing to knock and request permission before entering residents' rooms. This was evident for 2 (Resident #79, #72) of 2 residents reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodations to maintain residents' independence by failing to ensure access to remote bed controls that worked to adjust their bed settings independently. This was evident in 1 of 2 room observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a clean, comfortable, and home-like environment for residents. This was evident in 1 of 2 rooms identified with environmental concerns during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor and prevent the misappropriation of resident property. This was evident for 1 (Resident #76) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the completion of a death in facility tracking record for a resident who expired. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #44) out of one resident reviewed for the Resident Assessment task.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident participated in the care planning process and that interdisciplinary team (IDT) care conference meetings were conducted following completion of MDS assessments. This was evident in one (Resident#12) of three residents reviewed for care planning during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication was obtained in a timely manner and that it was administered as ordered. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #5) out of one resident reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure necessary equipment for pressure ulcer prevention was properly functioning and monitored. This was evident for 1 (Resident #8) of 1 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain respiratory care equipment for residents who required continuous oxygen via nasal cannula. This was evident in 1 (Resident #72) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff completed physical assessment of resident after they returned from dialysis treatment. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #5) out of one resident reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled and discarded when expired. This was evident in 2 of 3 medication carts observed during medication storage and labeling inspection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to offer and administer covid-19 immunization to residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #11 and #59) of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, record review, facility document review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible, which affected 4 (Resident #8, #7, #12, and #18) of 9 residents reviewed for accidents or falls during the complaint survey. Specifically, Resident #8 was improperly transferred by one staff when they required two staff to safely transfer causing actual harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, record review, facility document review, and interview, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse, including injury of unknown origin, to the state survey agency within the required timeframe, which affected 6 (Residents #14, #15, #4, #7, #19, and #10) of 12 residents reviewed for abuse or resident-to-resident altercations.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, record review, facility document review, and interview, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation or maintain evidence of a thorough investigation. The facility also failed to protect residents from potential further abuse by allowing an alleged abuser to remain in the building. The deficiencies affected 6 (Residents #14, #15, #16, #4, #7, and #19) of 12 residents reviewed for abuse or resident-to-resident altercations during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility document review and interview, the facility failed to ensure their Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program effectively implemented a plan to address quality deficiencies identified related to falls. This deficient practice affected 3 (Residents #7, 12, and #18) of 9 sampled residents reviewed for accidents during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff communicated all pertinent information to a physician, which affected 1 (Resident #4) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, record review, facility document review, and interview, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical and verbal abuse by a staff member for 1 (Resident #4) of 4 residents sampled for abuse during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement their policies regarding investigating, documenting, and reporting an incident of resident-to-resident abuse, for one (Resident #14) of 12 residents reviewed for abuse or resident-to-resident altercations during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, facility policy review, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, Version 1.19.1, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately coded for 1 (Resident #4) of 19 residents reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff accurately assessed a resident following a change in condition and failed to respond appropriately during the change of condition, which affected 1 (Resident #4) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility reported incident investigation documents and medical records, interviews and observations it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a vulnerable resident from exiting the facility unattended by staff. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #234) out of 3 residents reviewed in relation to facility self reports of elopement during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide care to prevent the development of pressure ulcers. This was found to be evident for one(Resident #34) out of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during the survey. This deficient practice resulted in actual harm to Resident #34.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to submit their Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) information to Medicare. This was evident in the off-site preparation portion and during the on-site recertification survey.
Inspectors wrote2) On 11/12/24 review of Resident #31's medical record revealed a Decision Making Capacity form, signed by the physician on 4/10/24, that indicated the resident was able to make health care decisions. Review of the Social Service 72 Hour Meeting Form, signed by the Social Worker (SW Staff #10), revealed the question: Does the resident have an Advance Directive? was marked as No. Further review of the medical record failed to reveal documentation to indicate there was follow up with the resident about initiating an Advance Directive. On 11/13/24 at 3:42 PM the SW #10 indicated if the answer to the Advance Directive question is No she does not follow up. On 11/14/24 review of the admission packet used by the facility revealed a blank Advance Directive form. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a primary care provider was notified of an abnormal lab result. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #53) out of 5 resident reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to 1) report allegations of abuse, and 2) timely report allegations of abuse. This was evident for two residents (Resident #1 and #12) identified during a review of an employee file and 4 residents (Residents #55, #72, #245, and #51) reviewed in relationship to 25 facility reported incidents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately documented. This was evident for 1 (Resident #16) of 3 residents reviewed for vision/hearing; and 1 (Resident #57) of 4 residents reviewed for dementia care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide a resident and/or a resident's representative with a summary of the baseline care plan. This was evident for 3 Residents (#82, #237, #255) of 50 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to invite alert and oriented residents to their care plan meetings. This was evident for 2 (#52, #136) of 2 residents reviewed for care planning. {or include the additional 2 for 4 out of 50}
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff reviewed/acknowledged specialists recommendations; failure to ensure assessment were completed accurately and failed to follow physician orders. This was found to be evident for five (Resident #31, #256, #16, #11 and #83) out of 50 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store medications in accordance with professional standards by failing to discard expired medications; failing to ensure medicated creams were kept in the locked medication carts or storage rooms; and failure to ensure discontinued controlled medications were removed and discarded. This was evident in 1 of 3 medication carts observed during medication storage and labeling inspection; and 3 (Resident #30, #44 and #66) of 50 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, pertinent document reviews and observations it was determined that the facility failed to respond in a timely manner to a resident request for assistance. This was evident for 2 (Resident #24, #18) observed during a random observation on Nursing unit 1.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pertinent documentation and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure resident's were provided advance notification of the date Medicare would not cover their skilled services. This was found to be evident for 1(Resident #14) out of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notification review.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record and facility investigation documentation and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to protect the residents from verbal abuse and misappropriation of narcotics. This was found to be evident for two (Resident #57 and # 53) out of 19 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse. This was evident for 2 facility reported incidents (#MD00187641 and #MD00201779) of 25 facility reported incidents investigated during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer in writing. This was evident in 1 (Resident #29) of 1 resident reviewed or hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days following a significant decline in a resident's condition. This was evident for 1 (Resident #10) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications review.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and observations it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff assisted resident with wearing eyeglasses. This was found to be evident for 2 out of 3 residents reviewed for vision and hearing.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with care for activities of daily living. This was evident for 1 complaint (#MD00205800) of 13 complaints reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an activities program to meet the needs and preferences of residents. This was evident for 2 (Resident #10 and #34) of 2 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a limited range of motion received treatment and services as ordered by the attending provider to prevent further decline in the range of motion. This was evident for 2 (Resident #16 and #40) of 4 residents reviewed for position and mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently document the reasons for administering an as-needed (PRN) pain medication and failed to document pain assessment to include the location of the pain and type of pain for a Resident reporting pain. This was evident for 1 (Resident #10) of 5 Residents reviewed for unnecessary medications review.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to obtain pre-dialysis treatment records for a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #37) of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to employ competent nursing staff. This was evident during the Staffing task investigation, and for 1 complaint (#MD00205800) of 13 complaints reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure ordered 15 minute checks for suicidal ideation; and failed to report increase in agitation that resulted in the administration of Ativan without an order. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #234 and #66) out of 50 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review, observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure services provided to a resident with dementia are based on their choices and preferences. This was evident in 1 (Resident #57) of 4 residents reviewed for dementia care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to keep a resident's drug regimen free from unnecessary drugs by failing to ensure that an attending provider's orders for a resident's topical anesthetic medication included a time to remove it; and failed to provide adequate monitoring and indications for use of biological creams. This was evident for 1 (Resident #10) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications; and 1 (Resident #30) of 3 reviewed for pressure ulcers during this survey
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to document the specific reasons for administering a psychotropic medication and failed to implement non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) before administering the medicine as needed (PRN). This was evident for 1 (#10) of 5 Residents reviewed for unnecessary medications review.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and records review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medication error rates were below 5% during the completion of the medication administration facility task. This was evident for 2 of the 36 opportunities observed for the medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from a significant medication error. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #66) out of three resident with orders for as needed controlled medications reviewed during the investigation of drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide timely radiological services to its residents. This was evident for 1 facility reported incident (#MD00190908) of 25 facility reported incidents investigated during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility staffing data and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure compliance with The Code of Maryland Regulations for Nursing Services - Staffing, 10.07.02.19 which states that A nursing home shall employ supervisory personnel and a sufficient number of support personnel to provide a minimum of 3 hours of bedside care per occupied bed per day, 7 days per week. by failing to ensure staffing at or above 3 hours of bedside care per patient per day (PPD). This was found to be evident for 63 out of 167 days reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have a facility assessment that was accurate and complete. This practice has the ability to affect all residents of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document resident records. This was evident for 2 (Resident #57, and #252) out of the 50 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff completed hand sanitation between dressing changes; and failed to have a physical barrier between the clean and soiled areas of the laundry room to prevent cross-contamination. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #34) out of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers; and one out of one laundry room observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and pertinent document review the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure an automated external defibrillator (AED), was maintained in a working order. This was evident for one automated external defibrillator out of 2 AEDs available in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and pertinent document review it was determined the facility failed to ensure that the resident's call system was functioning properly. This was found to be evident during random observations and had the potential to affect all resident rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and facility documentation review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow infection control practices and guidelines to prevent the development and transmission of disease by failing to follow transmission based precautions and using gloves to handle resident medications. This was evident for 1 (#11) of 1 staff observed passing ice water and 1 (#10) of 4 staff observed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility investigation, resident medical records, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident remained free of verbal abuse. This was true for 2 (Residents #28 and # 2) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to document what preparation and orientation was given to residents to ensure an orderly transfer to an acute care facility. This was evident for 2 (#7, #58) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on medication administration observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent for 2 (#7, #16) of 12 residents observed with 31 medication administration opportunities which resulted in an error rate of 6.45% by 1 of 1 Licensed Practical Nurse and 1 of 3 certified medicine aides observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility did not have a process in place to ensure that all resident care equipment is maintained and calibrated to be in safe operating condition. This was noted for 1 of 4 certified medicine aides observed administering medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on residents' interviews during the resident council meeting, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure residents could receive and sent out mail on Saturdays.
19 fire safety citations on file: 11 on March 6, 2026, 6 on November 26, 2024, 2 on September 20, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 7, 2025 | Fine | $15,106 |
| November 26, 2024 | Fine | $16,559 |
| November 26, 2024 | Fine | $16,562 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.50 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.75 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.13 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.98 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.77 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 48.4% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.69 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.65 on weekdays and 3.13 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 8.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.43 in April to June 2025 to 3.50 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.50 | 0.75 | 3.65 | 3.13 | 8.8% | 0 of 90 | 84 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.56 | 0.63 | 3.64 | 3.34 | 9.3% | 0 of 92 | 83 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.33 | 0.65 | 3.44 | 3.06 | 11.3% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.43 | 0.54 | 3.51 | 3.22 | 24.2% | 0 of 91 | 85 |
| 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 | 27.5 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.2 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 25.9 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.8 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.8 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Mountain City Rehab Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.2% 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. 159 eligible stays.
11.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Maryland: 0 better, 41 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 163 eligible stays.
8.4% 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. 113 eligible stays.
38.5% 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. 65 residents counted.
2.1% 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. 93 residents counted.
6.7% 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. 93 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. 46 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: Legal Business Name Not Available.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership data not available |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Maryland. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.