706 East Alder Street, Oakland, MD 21550 · Garrett County · (301) 334-2319
100 certified beds, about 55 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215232 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 12, 2025, inspectors cited 25 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 72 health citations since March 2019, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $16,559 in the last three years; the largest was $8,281, and the latest is dated August 1, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.16 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.36 of those hours.
45.3% 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 72 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that licensed nurses had specific competencies and skill sets necessary to care for residents' needs. This was evident for 5 (Staff #12, #13, #14, #15, and #16) of 5 randomly selected Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) during the Staffing task portion of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure there was a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours every day. This was evident for 2 days (11/23/25, 12/03/25) of 22 days reviewed for federal staffing compliance during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee maintained a comprehensive, data-driven program. This failure was evident for one of one QAPI program reviewed during the Quality Assurance task.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sidewalks and patios in a manner that was safe for residents, staff, and the public. This failure was evident for three of three sidewalks observed and one of one patio observed during the Environmental task.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview, and observation it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan and failed to ensure that care plan interventions were implemented. This was found to be evident for two (Resident's # 3 and #2) out of two residents reviewed for accidents and for one (Resident #49) of two residents reviewed for Respiratory Care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNAs) required training. This was evident for 3 of 5 GNAs (GNA #8, GNA #9, GNA #10) reviewed for evidence of required training during the Staffing task portion of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who required assistance with self-care was groomed in a manner that preserved the Resident's dignity. This was evident for 1 (Resident #12) of 1 resident reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the risks and benefits of a psychoactive medication was discussed with the resident and or the responsible representative prior to the start of treatment with psychoactive medication. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #20) out of five resident's reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents, and or responsible representatives, were asked about advance directives and that responsible decision makers were involved in the determination of orders regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and other life-sustaining treatment options. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #3) out of three residents reviewed for Advance Directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the primary care physician and the registered dietitian were made aware of the identification of continued significant weight loss in a timely manner. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #3) out of three residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to enter, investigate, and follow up on grievance in a timely manner. This failure was identified while performing the Resident Council task and was evident for 1 of 1 grievance reviewed in the facility's grievance log.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure written transfer notice and bed hold policy information was provided to the resident and the responsible party when the resident was transferred to the hospital. This was found to be evident for two (Resident #2 and #5) of the three residents reviewed for hospitalizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately recorded. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) out of 1 resident reviewed for position and mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure baseline care plan information was provided to the resident and or the responsible representative. This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #3, #20 and #55) out of the 15 residents included in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who were dependent on staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) received oral care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) of 2 residents reviewed for ADL.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities that met residents' needs and preferences. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) out of 3 residents reviewed for activities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure appropriate follow-up care after a hospital discharge; and failed to ensure there were orders or care plan interventions for the use and monitoring of an air mattress. This failure was evident for one (Resident #1) of two residents reviewed for catheter use; and one (Resident #53) out of one resident reviewed for skin issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, 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 to prevent further decline in his/her range of motion. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) out of 1 resident reviewed for position and mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' colostomy care was provided by appropriately trained, competent, skilled nursing staff. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) of 1 resident reviewed for colostomy care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to residents receiving tube feedings. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) of 1 resident reviewed for tube feeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to follow an attending physician's order to administer oxygen to a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #49) of 2 residents reviewed for Respiratory Care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to manage Residents' pain. This was evident for 2 (Residents #6, #59) of 2 residents reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident was seen by the primary care provider every 30 days for the first 90 days of admission. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #3) out of three resident reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for the storage of controlled drugs that required refrigeration. This was found to evident in two out of the two medication storage rooms in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the medical record accurately reflected the resident's need for and use of supplemental oxygen. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #3) out of two residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an alarm on the fire exit door of the secured unit sounded to prevent elopement for 1 (Resident #7) of 1 resident reviewed for elopement. The failure resulted in Resident #7 exiting the facility on the morning of 07/28/2024 at 6:10 AM and being found by staff approximately one-half mile from the facility at approximately 7:00 AM. It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused or was likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death to one or more facility residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was related to 42 CFR 483.25(d), F689, Supervision to Prevent Accidents at a scope and severity of J. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to monitor and assess a resident's oral fluid intake, notify the physician of changes in intake, and put interventions in place to maintain adequate hydration for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 residents reviewed for dehydration. Specifically, the facility failed to identify and address Resident #3's inadequate fluid intake, which resulted in actual harm to Resident #3 who required hospitalization with diagnoses of encephalopathy and dehydration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, facility document review, and policy review, the facility failed to check the automated external defibrillator (AED) daily for 157 days out of 421 days (37%).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, interview, facility document review, and facility policy, the facility failed to protect residents from verbal and physical abuse for 2 (Resident #4 and Resident #5) of 7 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility document review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to submit an initial allegation of a bruise of unknown origin and failed to submit a five-day follow-up report of verbal abuse timely for Resident #5. Additionally, the facility failed to submit a five-day follow-up report of misappropriation of property timely for Resident #6. These failures affected 2 (Resident #5 and Resident #6) of 7 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of staffing sheets and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a registered nurse was onsite at the facility at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. This practice has the potential to affect the health and safety of all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of the kitchen and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to follow professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, facility staff failed to treat residents with respect and dignity during meal time. This was evident for 2 (# 31 and #10) of 9 residents observed in Unit 1 Dining Room.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to honor a resident's bathing preference. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident #24) out of 1 resident reviewed for choices during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that significant weight losses were reported to the physician, registered dietitian and family in a timely manner. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #23, #39) out of 5 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a home-like environment to residents. This was evident for 2 of 2 nursing units reviewed for environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement abuse policies and procedures. This was evident for 1 of 1 abuse policies reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an allegation of abuse and failed to further protect the residents until the investigation had been completed. This was evident for 1( Resident #250) of 5 residents reviewed for neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) notify the resident/resident representative in writing of a transfer/discharge of a resident along with the reason for the transfer. This was evident for 1 (#42) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a resident's representative with a written bed hold policy when the resident was transferred to the hospital. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident # 9) out of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalizations during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately. This was evident for 1(# 36) of 4 residents reviewed for limited range of motion and 1 (#39) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the necessary care to ensure that a resident was kept well-groomed with clean hair. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident #24) out of 1 resident reviewed for choices.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility 1) failed to ensure that a newly admitted resident was provided the appropriate medications upon admission to the facility. This was evident for 1 (# 257) of 1 resident reviewed for general concerns. This was evident for 1 (#246) of 8 residents reviewed for complaints.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical records reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to establish a process to safely monitor residents in the dining room without staff supervision nor were residents in the dining room provided with a means to communicate with the staff in case of an emergency and or routine requests. This was evident for two out two observations made during the investigation phase of the annual survey.
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 resident weights were obtained timely following readmission to the facility and weights were obtained as recommended by the dietician, 2) failing to ensure that a resident's significant weight loss was confirmed and reported to the dietician and physician so it could be addressed in a timely manner, 3) failing to ensure the physician addressed a resident's significant weight loss, 4) failing to ensure the dietician recommendations were implemented, and 4) failing to ensure the resident's representative was notified when the resident had a significant weight loss. This was evident for 3 (#246, #23, #24) of 5 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, it was determined that the physician failed to address a residents' recent significant weight loss in the progress notes. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #23) out of 5 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the physician failed to see residents every 60 days at a minimum. This was evident for 1 (#246) of 5 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) personnel files and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to conduct yearly performance reviews at least every 12 months. This was found to be evident for all of the GNA's working in the facility. Based on review of employee files and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to put a system in place to ensure that Geriatric Nursing Assistants (GNA) were evaluated annually and provided appropriate re-education based on the outcome of these evaluations. This was found to be evident for 3 of 3 GNA (#14, #20, #23) reviewed for annual evaluations. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all the residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to ensure a resident had a continuous supply of their prescribed medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 25) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, and 2) failed to ensure staff followed porcedures related to the accounting of controlled substances. This was found to be evident on 2 of 2 nursing unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the pharmacist failed to identify an order that was over the maximum recommended dose of a medication. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #39) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from excessive dose of a medication. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #39) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of pertinent documentation and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were stored according to accepted professional standards. This was found to be evident for two out of two nursing units.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to serve residents a meal that was appetizing in appearance and at the appropriate temperature. This was evident for 1 (#35) of 1 resident reviewed for food concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain complete medical records for residents. This was evident for 1 (#35) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization and 1 (#36) of 9 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that appropriate hand hygiene was maintained during wound care. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident #25) reviewed for pressure injury during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain sidewalks and patios in a way that they were safe for the residents, staff, and the public to use. This was evident for 3 of 3 sidewalks and 1 of 1 patio observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record, it was determined that the facility staff failed to review and revise resident's care plans after each Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment and as needed. This was evident for 1 (#10) of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers and infections, 1 (#26) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, 1 (#38) of 2 residents reviewed for activities of daily living, and 1 (#17) of 2 residents reviewed for care plans. A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess, and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with staff and review of the medical record, the facility failed to ensure that there were sufficient nursing staff to assure resident safety, to attain or maintain the highest practical well-being of each resident, and to administer medications in accordance with the standards of professional practice. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to treat residents with dignity and respect by failing to answer call bells in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #46) out of 16 residents interviewed the first day.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview with the resident and review of the medical record, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop and implement person-centered care plans for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes. This was evident for 1 (Resident #10) of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers and infections, 1 (Resident #26) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, and 1 (Resident #17) of 2 residents reviewed for care plans. A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure physician medical visit notes were in residents' medical records on the day the residents were seen. This was evident for 1 (#26) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 1 (#38) of 2 residents reviewed for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation and interviews with the facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that effective quality assessment and assurance performance improvement interventions were implemented to address deficiencies from a previous survey. This was evident during review of the Quality Assurance program.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interview and medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to include the resident and the resident's representative in the development and implementation of the resident's person-centered care plan. This was evident for 1 (#14) of 2 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and resident interview, it was determined that the facility failed to allow a resident to participate in choosing fall prevention measures. This was evident for 1 (#42) of 2 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs).
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 1 (#26) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview and record review, it was determined that facility staff failed to implement a baseline care plan to ensure that Resident #68's pain was managed. This was evident for 1 (#68) of 2 residents reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physician orders for as-needed pain medication contained parameters for nursing administration of the medication. This was evident for 1 (#25) of 2 residents reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and interview with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received medication from competent nursing staff in a way that followed the standards of medication administration and assured resident safety. This was evident for 1 of 3 medication observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident medical records were complete and accurate. This was evident for 2 (Residents #66 & #9) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of a transfer/discharge of a resident along with the reason for the transfer. Additionally, the facility failed to routinely notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman of transfer/discharges of residents. This was evident for 3 (#69, #42, and #66) of 3 residents reviewed that were transferred to an acute care facility.
Inspectors wrote2) A medical record review conducted on 3/15/19, of Resident #42's progress notes revealed resident was sent to an acute care facility on 2/20/19 and there was no documentation that the resident's responsible party was notified, in writing, of the facility's bed hold policy. Based on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident/resident representative in writing of the bed hold policy when the resident was transferred to an acute care facility. This was evident for 2 (#66, #42) of 3 residents reviewed that were transferred to an acute care facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that discharge summaries were completed for all discharge residents within a reasonable period of time. This was evident for 2 (#70, #71) of 3 residents reviewed for discharge.
26 fire safety citations on file: 15 on December 12, 2025, 8 on June 7, 2023, 3 on March 15, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 1, 2025 | Fine | $8,278 |
| August 1, 2025 | Fine | $8,281 |
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) | 3.16 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.36 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.85 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.96 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.84 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.3% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.98 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 3.28 on weekdays and 2.85 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 34.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.28 in April to June 2025 to 3.16 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 | 3.16 | 0.36 | 3.28 | 2.85 | 34.1% | 5 of 90 | 55 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.26 | 0.53 | 3.40 | 2.90 | 23.5% | 0 of 92 | 53 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.46 | 0.59 | 3.65 | 2.98 | 37.6% | 1 of 92 | 52 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.28 | 0.61 | 3.42 | 2.91 | 41.9% | 1 of 91 | 53 |
| 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 | 34.6 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 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 | 30.8 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.3 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.4 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.5 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.0 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Oakland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (46.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
46.8% 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. 37 eligible stays.
10.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Maryland: 0 better, 41 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 39 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 24 eligible stays.
41.9% 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. 31 residents counted.
2.2% 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. 45 residents counted.
6.6% 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. 45 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 13 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: OAKLAND 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 indirect ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/18/2016 |
| Roles, Michael | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 12/18/2023 | |
| Roles, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/18/2023 |
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.