8800 Walther Boulevard, Parkville, MD 21234 · Baltimore County · (410) 882-3248
80 certified beds, about 77 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1997
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215308 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 12, 2026, inspectors cited 0 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 26 health citations since October 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $49,725 in the last three years; the largest was $49,725, and the latest is dated September 6, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.39 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 1.01 of those hours.
50.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Erickson Senior Living, an affiliated group of 17 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 26 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record and interviews, facility staff failed to fully inform the Power of Attorney (POA) of a resident before conducting a diagnostic procedure. This finding was evident for one (Resident #16) out of six residents reviewed for injury of unknown origin during this complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to protect the privacy of residents' medical information. This was found to be evident in 1 out of 3 nursing units observed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical records review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to revise interdisciplinary care plans to reflect accurate interventions for residents. This was evident for one (Resident #21) of the six residents reviewed for injuries of unknown origin during this complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a complaint and of the medical record, interviews with facility staff, and observation, it was determined the facility failed to provide assistive devices to residents that would allow the residents the ability to achieve the greatest independence with performing Activities of Daily Living (ADL). This was evident for 1 (#312111 regarding Resident #8) of 5 complaints reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a complaint and of the medical record, interviews with facility staff, and observation, it was determined the facility failed to provide supplements as documented in a resident's care plan and Dining Detail. This was evident for 1 (#312111 regarding Resident #8) of 5 complaints reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on investigation of complaints, medical records review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to coordinate care for a resident receiving hospice services. This was evident that one (Resident #16) of 22 residents reviewed for their care during this complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility reported incidents, review of employee records, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have documentation that a Care Associate (CA) was given abuse training after returning from suspension related to an allegation of abuse. This was evident for 1 (CA #18) of 2 Care Associates records reviewed during this complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility investigation documents, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents remained free of abuse and neglect. This failure led to physical abuse and harm of Resident #135. This finding was evident for 5 of 34 (Resident #135, #130, #117, #122, #125) residents reviewed for abuse during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews, and review of facility investigation documents, it was determined that the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to Resident #132 who had a documented history of wandering, agitation, and physically aggressive behaviors as evidenced by the physical abuse and harm of Resident #135. This was evident for 1 (Resident #132) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents and adequate supervision during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, administrative reviews, and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to monitor and implement interventions to address the nutritional needs of residents who had a known significant weight loss. This deficient practice was evident for 5 (#127 and #22, #17, #40, #33) out of 15 residents reviewed for nutrition. The failure resulted in harm to Resident #127.
Inspectors wrote5. On 09/03/24 at 3:00 pm review of the facility's investigation of Resident #122 alleged allegation of abuse revealed there was not a date on the reporting form to verify when the facility reported the incident to the state agency. There was no email to verify the date and time the incident was sent to OHCQ. Administrator #1 was made aware and asked to provide documentation of when the state agency was made aware of the allegation of abuse. On 09/04/24 at 08:16 am received a copy of the email when the incident concerning Resident #122 was reported to OHCQ. The incident was reported on 12/20/23 at 1:30 pm. Per documentation provided by the facility, Administrator #1 was made aware of the incident on 12/20/23 at 9:30 am. The alleged allegation of abuse was reported to the state agency outside the allotted 2-hour timeframe. 6. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, staff interviews and record review, it was determined that the kitchen failed to store food items so as to maintain the integrity of the specific item and failed to wear gloves while preparing food. This was observed during the initial tour of the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, resident interviews, and staff interviews, It was determined that the facility failed to treat the resident with dignity by improperly turning the resident. This was evident for 1 (resident #5) of 9 residents reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interview, the facility failed to accommodate the resident's (#22) dietary needs. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that staff reported suspected abuse to the administration in a timely manner resulting in the alleged perpetrator being allowed to continue to provide services to the victim prior to the initiation of the investigation. This was evident for 1(Resident #28) out of 8 residents reviewed for abuse during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow professional nursing standards as evidenced by nursing staff failure to sign the medication record after an antibiotic was administered. This deficient practice was evident in 1 (#123) of 2 medical records reviewed for medication administration during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to administer antibiotic therapy as ordered for a resident. This deficient practice was evident in 1 (#123) of 2 resident records reviewed for medication administration during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to provide documentation to verify a resident received a shower during their admission. This deficient practice was evident in 1 (#123) of 1 resident record reviewed for showers during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents were fed at the same time. This was evident for 2 out of 4 dining observations. The evidence includes: This surveyor observed dining on the Cottonwood unit on 10/3/19. Residents seated at tables #13 and #17 (the tables were butted up against each other) were observed eating at 11:48 AM while Residents # 7 and # 102 were seated and waiting for their food. Resident # 102 was served at 11:59 AM and Resident # 7 was served at 12:05 PM. This surveyor observed dining on the Cottonwood unit on 10/04/19. Two residents were observed at tables # 13 and #17 eating at 11:55 AM. Residents # 102 and Resident # 7 were observed seated waiting for their food and not served their lunch until 12:03 PM. The Administrator and Director of Nursing were interviewed on 10/10/19 at 8:52 AM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This was evident for 1 bathing room and 1 hallway in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the resident or responsible party in writing of the reason for Resident (#152) transfer to the hospital. This was evident for 1 of 2 resident reviewed for hospitalization during the annual recertification survey and 1 out of 71 residents selected for review during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility staff failed to document accurate assessment for Resident (#20) on the MDS. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident selected for review of restraints and 1 of 71 residents selected for review of MDSs assessment during the annual survey process. The MDS is a federally mandated assessment tool that helps nursing home staff gathers information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. MDS assessments need to be accurate to ensure each resident receives the care they need. Categories of MDS (Minimum Data Set) are: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to immediately place oxygen on a resident who needed it. This was evident for 1 out of 2 residents reviewed as part of the complaint process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to obtain weights as ordered for Resident (#152). This was evident for 1 of 71 residents selected for review during the survey process. Medical record review for Resident #152 revealed on 7/1/19 the physician ordered: weight daily x3 days and then 3 times a week for acute CHF diagnosis. Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a chronic progressive condition that affects the pumping power of the heart muscles. While often referred to simply as heart failure, CHF specifically refers to the stage in which fluid builds up around the heart and causes it to pump inefficiently. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as evidenced by the presence of a mouse. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation On 10-3-19 during the annual recertification survey it was determined the facility failed to post the required nursing staffing data in a readily accessible area for residents and visitors at any given time. This was evident on 1 out of 4 nursing assignment boards
11 fire safety citations on file: 1 on February 12, 2026, 8 on September 6, 2024, 2 on October 11, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 6, 2024 | Fine | $49,725 |
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) | 4.39 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 1.01 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.01 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.66 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.72 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.0% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 43.5% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.54 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 4.54 on weekdays and 4.01 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.28 in April to June 2025 to 4.39 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 | 4.39 | 1.01 | 4.54 | 4.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 77 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.16 | 0.92 | 4.29 | 3.81 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.23 | 0.88 | 4.35 | 3.92 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 105 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.28 | 0.99 | 4.39 | 4.00 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 108 |
| 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.
| 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 | 28.4 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.2 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 38.9 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.9 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.1 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.6 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Oak Crest Village's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (66.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
66.6% 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. 355 eligible stays.
11.1% 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. 373 eligible stays.
7.2% 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. 185 eligible stays.
63.9% 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. 122 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 145 residents counted.
3.2% 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. 145 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. 78 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: OAK CREST VILLAGE, INC.. CMS links this home to Erickson Senior Living, a group of 17 nursing homes averaging 4.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Senior Communities, Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/14/2021 |
| Brown, Ian | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Brown, Patricia | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Clupper, Katherine | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Colins, Mary | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2018 | |
| Erstad, Eileen | Corporate director | Individual | 02/15/2007 | |
| Jacque, Zina | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2018 | |
| Leonard, Monty | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Moscato, Mary | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Padilla, Madonna | Corporate director | Individual | 03/26/2026 | |
| Paulk, Pamela | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Pomeranz, William | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Reel, Stephanie | Corporate director | Individual | 04/22/2013 | |
| Robust, Ruth Ann | Corporate director | Individual | 03/26/2026 | |
| Roskiewicz, Michael | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2019 | |
| Sharp, Russel | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Wallick, Daniel | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Colins, Mary | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2019 | |
| Embley, Mark | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/27/2021 | |
| Erstad, Eileen | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/15/2007 | |
| Hall, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/30/2010 | |
| Leonard, Monty | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Merkert, Robert | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/26/2026 | |
| Reel, Stephanie | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/27/2021 | |
| Sawicki, Scott | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Stiner, Pamela | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Tyler, Daniel | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Erickson Senior Living LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/23/2020 | |
| National Senior Communities, Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/14/2021 | |
| Butler, Richard | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Embley, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/27/2021 | |
| Hall, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/30/2010 | |
| Jeffreys, Ronald | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/12/2018 | |
| Merkert, Robert | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/26/2026 | |
| Stiner, Pamela | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Sweetser, Christian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2022 | |
| Wolf, Justin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/17/2023 | |
| Bison, Michael | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/14/2025 | |
| Ridley, Fred | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/14/2025 | |
| Sones, Randall | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 10/14/2025 | |
| Erickson Senior Living LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/12/2025 | |
| National Senior Communities, Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/14/2021 | |
| Embley, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/27/2021 | |
| Hall, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/30/2010 | |
| Jeffreys, Ronald | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/11/2025 | |
| Merkert, Robert | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/26/2026 | |
| Stiner, Pamela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2024 | |
| Sweetser, Christian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2022 | |
| Wolf, Justin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/17/2023 |
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.