200 East 16th Street, Frederick, MD 21701 · Frederick County · (301) 662-8700
196 certified beds, about 111 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215217 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 30, 2026, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 67 health citations since October 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $16,562 in the last three years; the largest was $16,562, and the latest is dated August 29, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.44 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.55 of those hours.
26.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Fundamental Healthcare, an affiliated group of 66 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 67 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff reported environmental concerns to maintenance. This was found to be evident for one out of seven rooms reviewed for potential environmental concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide evidence that the resident or the resident's representative was notified in writing of the facility's bed hold and transfer policies at the time of hospital transfer. This deficient practice was identified for 2 residents (Residents #1 and #90) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident's comprehensive care plan accurately reflected the resident's discharge wishes. This deficient practice was identified for 1 (Resident #75) of 2 residents reviewed for discharge planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide evidence of coordination of care with hospice services. This was evident for 1 (Resident #19) of 3 residents reviewed for hospice/end-of-life care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure urinary catheter bags were emptied as ordered. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #4) out of two residents reviewed for indwelling catheter usage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide oxygen therapy per the physician's order. This was evident for 1 (Resident #7) out 1 resident reviewed for oxygen therapy during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure side rails were only used when the resident assessment indicated a need for them and a physician order was in place for their use. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #60) out of three residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff received education based on findings from their annual performance evaluations. This was evident for 2 (Staff #25 and #26) of 3 Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) reviewed during the staffing task.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to assess a resident for behavioral health needs following a change in behavior. This was evident for 1 (Resident #121) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the pharmacist's monthly medication regimen review identified significant medication errors. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #4) out of six resident's reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #4) out of six residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were secured and stored at the required temperature and that the narcotics were stored in permanently affixed compartments. This deficiency was evident for 1 out of 3 narcotic boxes observed, 1 out of 3 medication refrigerators observed, and 1 medication cart observed during a random observation.1. On 1/27/26 at 2:27 PM, an observation was made of the medication room on the [NAME] Creek unit with Staff #4. Review of the medication refrigerator revealed a narcotic box with a lock on the front side. Further observation showed that the box was not affixed to the refrigerator. On 1/27/26 at 2:29 PM, during a brief interview, Staff #4 reported that the narcotic box could be removed from the refrigerator. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure concerns identified through the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) process were addressed through the development of a Performance Improvement Project (PIP). This was evident for 1 of 1 QAPI plans reviewed during the QAA/QAPI task.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff appropriately wore source control (face masks) during a period of increased influenza in the community. This was found to be evident during 6 random observations made on day one of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure employees completed required annual training. This was evident for 4 (Staff #10, #11, #16, and #29) of 5 staff reviewed for the sufficient and competent staffing task.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to implement their abuse policies and procedures by 1) failing to report all allegations of abuse to the state agency and the facility's abuse coordinator and 2) failing to conduct a thorough investigation of all allegations of abuse. This was evident for 1 of 1 policies and procedures reviewed for abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment and has the potential to affect all residents of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) have an effective system in place to ensure that all allegations of abuse are reported to the state agency, 2) to ensure that reports are sent within the mandated timeframe, and 3) to report the results of the investigation no later than 5 working days after the incident. This was evident in 6 (Resident #19, #9, #6, #25, #67, and #92) of 21 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to conduct a thorough investigation of abuse and maintain evidence of the investigation. This was evident for 7 (#424 #19, #9, #41, #92 #322, #67 ) of 21 residents reviewed for abuse and for 3 facility reported incidents reviewed for abuse (FRIs) (#MD00194834, and #MD00207292, and #MD00191798), of 34 FRIs investigated during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) had annual performance evaluations. This was evident for 3 GNAs (GNA #11, GNA #13, and GNA #14) of 3 GNAs reviewed during the Sufficient and Competent staffing task portion of the recertification survey. This had the potential to impact all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post actual hours of nursing staffing. This was evident for 31 of 31 days in July 2024 and 21 of 21 days in August 2024 during the Sufficient Staffing task investigation during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure adequate administrative oversight of 1) nursing staffing, 2) reporting of allegations of abuse, 3) Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) training, and 4) clinical services. This was evident for 1) non-compliance with 2 (S670, S680) of 2 state staffing regulations, 2) 6 residents (#6, #9, #19, #25, #67, #92) of 6 residents who alleged abuse, and 3) 6 staff (GNA #11, GNA #13, GNA #14, LPN #9, LPN #10, and LPN #12) of 6 staff reviewed for required in-service training, and 4) 2 complaints (#MD00208809 and #MD00208775) of 7 complaints and for 5 (#MD00206318, #MD00202094, #MD00182597, #MD00205031, MD#00205130) of 34 facility reported incidents (FRIs), reviewed during the recertification survey. These findings had the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility's nursing staff failed to follow basic infection control procedures and standard precautions during medication administration as evidenced by 1) failing to perform routine cleaning and disinfection of resident care equipment shared among residents, and 2) failing to follow standard precautions when performing routine testing of blood glucose. This was evident for 3 (#16, #19, #23) of 5 nurses observed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) and Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) were offered to receive and be educated about COVID-19 immunization. This was evident for 6 staff (GNA #11, GNA #13, GNA #14, LPN # 9, LPN #10, and LPN #12) of 6 staff reviewed for immunizations during a portion of the infection control investigation during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide communication training to staff. This was evident for 3 Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA #11, GNA #13, and GNA #14) of 3 GNAs reviewed, and 3 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN #9, LPN #10, and LPN #12) of 3 LPNs reviewed during the extended survey investigation of the recertification survey and had the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff were trained about resident rights. This was evident for 2 Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA #11, GNA #13) of 3 GNAs reviewed, and 3 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN #9, LPN #10, and LPN #12) of 3 LPNs reviewed during the extended survey investigation of the recertification survey and had the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff members complete abuse and neglect training. This was evident for 4 Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA #11, GNA #13, GNA #14, and GNA #34) of 4 GNAs reviewed, and 3 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN #9, LPN #10, and LPN #12) of 3 LPNs reviewed during the annual and extended survey investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) training to staff. This was evident for 3 Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA #11, GNA #13, and GNA #14) of 3 GNAs reviewed, and 3 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN #9, LPN #10, and LPN #12) of 3 LPNs reviewed during the extended survey investigation of the recertification survey and had the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide behavioral health training to staff. This was evident for 3 Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA #11, GNA #13, and GNA #14) of 3 GNAs reviewed, and 3 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN #9, LPN #10, and LPN #12) of 3 LPNs reviewed during the extended survey investigation of the recertification survey and had the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the primary care provider when there was a resident change of condition or a potential need to alter treatment. This was evident for 1 (Resident #28) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 1 (#95) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, 1 (#112) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents and and 3 (#1, #33, #6) of 3 residents reviewed for Resident Assessment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed conduct care plan meetings and review and revise resident care plans after each assessment. This was evident for 1 (#25) of 3 residents reviewed for communication/sensory, 1 (#95) of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory and 1 (Resident #6) of 2 residents reviewed for care planning.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5%. This was found to be evident based on 4 errors identified out of 25 opportunities for error, resulting in a 16% medication administration error rate.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the conditions of the facility were safe, clean, and without unaddressed concerns. This was found to be evident for 1 ([NAME] Creek 2 unit) out of 4 units observed throughout the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to protect residents from abuse. This was evident in 4 (Resident #9, #28, #104, and #424) of 21 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement interventions based on a resident's comprehensive care plan. This was evident for 1 (#25) of 3 residents reviewed for communication/sensory and 1 (#108) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure activities were provided to residents based on their preferences and as indicated in their care plan. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #113 and #28) out of 5 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) have a process in place to monitor resident's air pressure mattress settings and ensure that they were appropriate for the resident's current weight which resulted in a harm to Resident #3 and 2) ensure that a resident's change in condition was evaluated by a primary care provider. This was evident for 1 (#3) of 8 residents reviewed for falls and 1 (#110) of 2 residents reviewed for skin conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents receive proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing abilities. This was evident for 1 (#25) of 3 residents reviewed for communication/sensory.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a process was in place to ensure that recommendations made by therapy were communicated to and implemented by nursing. This was evident for 1 (Resident #37), out of 1 resident reviewed for position and mobility and 1 (Resident #28) of 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to evaluate and implement measures to address the resident's nutritional needs as evidenced by 1) failing to ensure that resident weights were obtained timely and as recommended by the dietician following a significant weight loss and 2) failing to ensure the physician was notified timely following a resident's significant weight loss. This was evident for 1 (#15) of 4 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on pertinent document review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide physician services to a resident at least once every 120 days. Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received timely physician visits. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident #92) of 2 residents reviewed for pain management and 1 (Resident #37), out of 6 Residents reviewed for Unnecessary Medications during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a psychotropic medication prescribed as needed (PRN), had an end date that was limited to 14 days. This was evident for 1 (#95) of 1 residents reviewed for hospice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, it was determined the facility failed to properly store medication as evidenced by failing to discard expired medications, failing to date medications when opened, and failing to return resident medication to a proper location after adminstration. This was evident for 2 of 5 medication carts, 1 of 1 treatment carts observed during the survey, and 1 complaint (#MD00207855) of 5 complaints reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that potentially hazardous food items were cooled according to acceptable standards. This was found to be evident in 2 out of 2 kitchen observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to keep complete and accurate medical records as evidenced by an accurate indication for a medication and clinical assessment documentation. This was evident for 1 (#15) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication and 1 resident (Resident #51) of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain essential equipment in a safe operating condition. This was evident for 1 kitchen observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately assess staff training needs relative to the needs of the resident population of the facility. This was evident for the Facility Assessment reviewed during the extended survey portion of the recertification survey and had the potential to affect residents who receive dialysis care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide infection control training to staff. This was evident for 1 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #9) of 3 LPNs reviewed during the extended survey investigation of the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents with an elopement risk had the appropriate interventions in place to prevent an elopement. This was evident for 1 (#109) of 10 residents reviewed for elopement. Evidence was provided by the facility that an action plan was developed, and corrective measures were implemented on 4/30/24, immediately after the incident, to remove the immediacy of the noncompliance and correct the deficient practice. On 8/20/24, a determination of immediate jeopardy was made regarding the deficient practice with the potential for past non-compliance. The Director of Nursing and Corporate Clinical Director Nurse #2 were informed at 5:45 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interview with staff, it was determined the facility failed to properly label beverages for resident consumption in 3 of 4 nourishment rooms and failed to properly clean and air dry dishes in the main kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and review of facility documentation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that effective quality assessment and assurance performance improvement interventions were implemented to address deficiencies from previous surveys. This was evident during review of the Quality Assurance program.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to update care plans when there were changes in resident needs or preferences, failed to ensure that a care plan meeting was held after each assessment and failed to thoroughly evaluate/review and revise resident plans of care after each assessment. This was evident for 2 (#118, #108) of 5 residents reviewed for dementia care, 1 (#41) of 5 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, and 2 (#17, #270) of residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, record review, and interview with the resident and facility staff, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that resident's environment was free from accident hazards as is possible by 1) failing to ensure an outside exit door was securely latched for 1 of 2 ground floor nursing units, and 2) failing to maintain safe storage of resident smoking materials for 1 (#17) of 10 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to obtain a physicians' order for a resident to have 4 side rails up while in bed. This was evident for 1 (#78) of 1 residents reviewed for side rails.
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 3 (#37, #28, and #226) of 6 residents observed with 26 medication administration opportunities which resulted in an error rate of 34.62% by 2 (1 Licensed Practical Nurse and 1 (Registered Nurse) of 2 nurses observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to keep complete and accurate medical records by failing to ensure that 1) a resident's use of bedside floor mats was accurately documented, 2) a resident's certification of incapacity was accurately completed by 2 physicians, and, 3) elopement risk assessments were accurate and complete. This was evident for 2 (#24, #40) of 5 residents reviewed for care plans and 5 (#70, #139, #2, #50 and #6) of 32 residents reviewed during the initial resident pool process.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility records and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appeal rights information by failing to issue the Notice of Medicare Non-coverage (NOMNC); and failed to ensure that the resident, or their representative, of his/her potential liability for payment and related standard claim appeal rights by failing to issue the required Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN). This was found to be evident for 2 of the 3 residents (Resident #410 and Resident #115) reviewed for Beneficiary Protection Notification review.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interview with staff, it was determined the facility failed to provide maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly and comfortable interior. This was evident in the main kitchen and in 5 of 16 resident rooms on 2 of 4 nursing units observed during the initial survey pool observations.
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 1 (#270) of 10 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to screen two residents (#24) and (#135) to determine if the residents had or may have had a mental disorder (MD), intellectual disability (ID), or related condition. This was identified for 2 of 2 residents found to have remained in the facility for greater than 30 days without a Preadmission Screening.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined the facility staff failed to follow a resident's plan of care for smoking and failed to develop and implement resident centered care plans. This was evident for 3 ( #17, #24, #270) of 10 residents reviewed for accidents and 1 (#118) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) for a resident who was dependent on staff to dress him. This was evident for 1 (#118) of 5 residents reviewed for ADLs.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that care was provided in accordance with professional standards as evidenced by failure to follow a physician's order for a resident with a history of falls, failure to administer a dietary supplement as ordered by the physician and failure to obtain a dietitian consult as ordered by the physician. This was found to be evident for 1 (#24) of 5 residents reviewed for care plans, 1 (#161) of 3 residents sampled for closed record review and 1 (#50) of 6 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop and implement a resident-centered dementia care plan for a resident. This was evident for 1 (#118) of 5 residents reviewed for dementia.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, it was determined the facility staff failed to store resident care supplies in a sanitary manner. This was evident for 1 (#70) of 32 residents observed during the initial pool selection process and 4 of 5 medication carts observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of daily staffing records, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post the total number and actual hours worked by categories of Registered nurses, Licensed practical nurses, and Certified nurse aides per shift and failed to have the staff data available in an accurate clear and readable format.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interview with facility staff and residents, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Essential Equipment was in safe operating condition. This was evident during observation of the main kitchen and [NAME] Creek 1 unit throughout the survey.
18 fire safety citations on file: 11 on January 30, 2026, 7 on August 29, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 29, 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) | 3.44 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.55 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.08 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.78 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.11 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 26.1% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 8.3% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.38 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 3.59 on weekdays and 3.08 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.50 in April to June 2025 to 3.44 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 | 3.44 | 0.55 | 3.59 | 3.08 | 5.7% | 0 of 90 | 111 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.44 | 0.54 | 3.57 | 3.11 | 11.1% | 0 of 92 | 115 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.37 | 0.54 | 3.50 | 3.04 | 10.3% | 0 of 92 | 113 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.50 | 0.54 | 3.65 | 3.13 | 10.5% | 0 of 91 | 117 |
| 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 | 21.7 | 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 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 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 | 26.3 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.6 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.5 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.2 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Northampton Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Cente's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (54.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
54.1% 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. 215 eligible stays.
10.6% 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. 241 eligible stays.
7.0% 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. 144 eligible stays.
56.6% this home
Median of homes: Maryland61.2% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 83 residents counted.
0.9% 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. 116 residents counted.
0.8% this home
Median of homes: Maryland2.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 116 residents counted.
91.7% 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. 24 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: FREDERICK HEALTH CARE LLC. CMS links this home to Fundamental Healthcare, a group of 66 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland Long Term Care LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/18/2016 |
| Roles, Michael | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/30/2021 | |
| Roles, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/30/2021 |
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.