200 Morgnec Road, Chestertown, MD 21620 · Kent County · (410) 778-4550
98 certified beds, about 95 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215262 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 16, 2025, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since April 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.56 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.69 of those hours.
16.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure a licensed practical nurse (LPN) maintained her current credentials for 1 (LPN #1) of 8 licensed nursing staff reviewed for current credentials. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who currently resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, the facility staff failed to 1) ensure a resident was seen timely by the Urologist as ordered and 2) reassess and intervene for a resident with urinary catheter problems. This was evident for 1 (Resident #3) of 4 residents reviewed for urinary catheters during a complaint survey. This failure led to the hospitalization of Resident #3 with diagnosis to include urinary tract infection and acute kidney injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards. This was evident for 2 (Residents #4, #3) of 9 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staff interviews and surveyor record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were coded accurately. This finding was found to be evident in 4 (Resident #1, #9, #33 and #103) out of 16 Residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and facility staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to have a safe/clean/comfortable/homelike environment for Residents. This finding was found to be evident in the following Resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 109, 111, 112 and 113) and the facility conference room during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staff interviews and surveyor record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans and follow care plan interventions for Residents. This finding was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #1, #29 and #41) out of 16 Residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staff interviews and surveyor record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to update and revise a Resident's care plan. This finding was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #29) out of 6 Residents reviewed for revision of Resident's care plans during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, review of facility policy, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to utilize professional standards during medication administration. This was found evident in 2 (Resident #59 and #6) of 3 medications administrations on the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for dependent Residents. This was found evident in 1 (Resident #112) out of 1 residents reviewed for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) care during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility's policy, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to identify and provide appropriate interventions for a resident's condition. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #112) out of 1 resident reviewed constipation/diarrhea during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide treatment/services to maintain hearing. This was found evident in 1 of 3 consults reviewed for Resident #59 on the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to administer oxygen and maintain continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was found to be evident for 2 (Residents #1, #58) out of 2 residents receiving oxygen and 1 (#1) out of 1 resident receiving CPAP therapy reviewed during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide pain management as prescribed. This was evident for 1 (Resident #109) of 1 resident reviewed for pain management during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, facility staff interview and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the posted nurse staffing information document displayed the required information. This finding was found to be evident in the review of sufficient and competent nurse staffing during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor record review, review of consultation notes and Resident and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with acceptable professional standards and practices by keeping complete and accurate documentation. This finding was found to be evident in 4 (Resident # 6, #33, #59, and #112) out of 41 Residents reviewed for identifiable information in the Resident medical records during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain practices to help prevent the transmission of infections. This was found evident on 2 (Resident #6 & #70) out of 2 observations of medication administration during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary environment for a resident. This was found in 1 (Resident #59) of 26 Resident rooms reviewed in the initial sample during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to keep complete and accurate medical records. This deficient practice was evident in 7 of 20 (#37, #42, #58, #5, #10, #77, #24) resident during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the dignity and privacy of a resident as evidenced by the resident's nephrostomy bags left uncovered while outside of their room. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 193) of 86 residents that were observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that residents' call bells were in reach to request assistance. This deficient practice was evident in 2 of 8 (Resident #32 and Resident #58) residents assessed for call bell accommodations during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to ensure that scheduled pain medications for a resident were not misappropriated. This was found to be evident during a medication drug storage review and narcotic review and reconciliation for 1 of 3 medication carts reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to generate a person-centered care plan for a resident who required assistance with dental care. This deficient practice was evident in 1(Resident #35) of 5 resident records reviewed for person centered care plans during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to have quarterly care plan meetings. This deficient practiced was evidenced in 1 (#73) of 3 resident records reviewed for care plan meetings during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the medication administration audit record (MAAR) and interview with facility staff, it was determined the facility staff failed to document after administering medications to residents. This was evident for 1 (Residents #32) of 6 residents reviewed for timely medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to: 1.) ensure that a resident (#5) received a scheduled dose of medication as ordered by the physician; 2.) ensure medications were signed off on the controlled drug receipt/disposition form after being administered to a resident (#10). This was evident during a medication drug storage review and narcotic review and reconciliation for 1 of 3 medication carts; and 3) administer scheduled medications to residents at the physician ordered time (Resident #32, Resident #23, Resident #42). This was evident for 3 (Residents #32, #23, #42) of 6 residents reviewed during a medication administration observation
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined the physician failed to evaluate a resident with a change in condition in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #24) during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medication administration observation, medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% during the medication observation facility task. This was evident for 5 of 27 medications administered during the observation which resulted in an error rate of 18.52%.
Inspectors wroteBased on medication administration observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to adhere to infection control practices and guidelines to prevent and control transmission of infectious agents during medication administration. This was evident for 2 of 27 medications administered during the medication administration observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to offer and administer the pneumococcal vaccine to a resident. This deficient practice was evidenced in 1 (#40) in 5 resident records reviewed for immunizations during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, it was determined that facility's food service employees failed to ensure that equipment was maintained and safe food handling practices were followed to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to honor a resident's choices (Resident #16). This was evident for 1 out of 40 residents reviewed during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation during the initial tour of the facility it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined that facility staff failed to notify a resident's representative in writing of a transfer to the hospital. This was evident for 3 of 40 residents (Resident #23, Resident #53, Resident #66) reviewed during survey investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interview and medical record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans with measurable goals. This was evident for 2 of 40 residents (Residents #37 and #53) reviewed during survey investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to follow the physician's orders for no weights, vitals or labs for a resident. This was evident for 1 of 40 residents (Resident #37) reviewed during the survey investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to follow the recommendations of the dietitian. This was evident for 1 out of 40 residents (Resident #44) reviewed during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain medical records in the most accurate form for a resident. This was evident for 1 of 40 residents (Resident #61) reviewed during the survey process.
31 fire safety citations on file: 3 on December 16, 2025, 17 on March 8, 2024, 11 on April 29, 2019.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.56 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.69 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.47 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.20 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.67 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 16.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 9.1% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.08 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 3.60 on weekdays and 3.47 on weekends, 4% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 33.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.60 in April to June 2025 to 3.56 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 | 3.56 | 0.69 | 3.60 | 3.47 | 33.7% | 0 of 90 | 95 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.60 | 0.64 | 3.65 | 3.47 | 34.5% | 0 of 92 | 96 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.61 | 0.63 | 3.66 | 3.48 | 33.6% | 0 of 92 | 95 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.60 | 0.63 | 3.68 | 3.41 | 35.5% | 0 of 91 | 94 |
| 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 | 28.6 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.2 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 28.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.8 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.1 | 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 Resorts at Chester River Manor Corp's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.7% 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. 118 eligible stays.
12.3% 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. 137 eligible stays.
7.9% 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. 91 eligible stays.
69.6% 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. 56 residents counted.
0.8% 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. 122 residents counted.
0.5% this home
Median of homes: Maryland2.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 122 residents counted.
98.2% 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. 56 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: RESORTS AT CHESTER RIVER MANOR CORP.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosenberg, Mindy | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 100% | 06/01/2018 |
| 200 Morgnec Rd LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 07/01/2018 | |
| Rosenberg, Zvi | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 07/01/2018 | |
| 200 Morgnec Rd LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 07/01/2018 | |
| Rosenberg, Zvi | 5% or greater security interest | Individual | 07/01/2018 | |
| Fleurancois, Nancy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Seitz, Stewart | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2018 | |
| 200 Morgnec Rd LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/01/2018 | |
| Fleurancois, Nancy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/18/2025 | |
| Rosenberg, Mindy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/18/2025 | |
| Rosenberg, Zvi | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2018 | |
| Seitz, Stewart | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/18/2025 |
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.