Home / Maryland / White Plains
4615 Einstein Place, White Plains, MD 20695 · Charles County · (240) 448-2000
80 certified beds, about 68 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2015
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215362 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 30, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 45 health citations since December 2018, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.42 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.56 of those hours.
36.2% 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 45 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report (1.) misappropriation of residents' property and (2.) an injury of unknown origin to the state agency. This was evident for 2 (Resident #78 and #91) out of 2 residents who were reviewed for reporting during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and safe positioning during activities of daily living (ADL) care for a dependent resident who required staff assistance with bed mobility. This deficient practice was determined to be past noncompliance that resulted in the resident falling from the bed during care and sustaining multiple fractures for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #7).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services to maintain the highest practicable physical well-being of residents by failing to ensure complete and thorough bathing and hygiene care and failing to provide an alternative method for showering when residents were unable to use a shower chair, for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #9, Resident #10, and Resident #17).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that resident records were accurate and reflected the care and services provided, by documenting that showers were provided when staff interviews revealed that showers were not performed, for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #9 and Resident #17).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews with staff and Residents and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for Residents. This finding was found to be evident for 4 (Resident #21, #51, #54, and #61) out of 7 Residents reviewed for the development and implementation of comprehensive care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide privacy to a resident during the administration of a subcutaneous injection. This was evident in 1 (Resident #54) of 1 resident observed for injection administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews with Residents and staff and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Resident's care plans were revised and updated timely. This finding was found to be evident in 2 (Resident #51 and #54) out of 2 Residents reviewed for care plan timing and revision.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the posted nurse staffing information was accurate and current. This finding was found to be evident in the review of sufficient and competent Nurse staffing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to store food in a manner that ensures food safety. This was evident in 1 out of 2 dining areas observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on Record Reviews, Observations and Interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete and accurate. This was evident for 2 (Resident #61, #46) out of 5 Residents reviewed for complete and accurate medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration. This was evident in 1 (Resident #40) of 5 residents observed during medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a functional and sanitary environment. This was found evident in 1 out of 2 dining areas observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interviews and an investigation into a complaint, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of suspected resident abuse to the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ). This finding was evident for 1 (#166) of 2 residents reviewed for abuse during the annual survey. This finding is related to complaint #MD00185506.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility staff interview and surveyor record review it was determined that the facility failed to investigate an alleged violation of abuse. This finding was found to be evident in 1 (Resident #187) out of 1 Resident that was reviewed for investigation of an alleged violation of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility staff interviews and surveyor review of a facility reported incident and a complaint, it was determined that facility failed to provide written notice to the Office of the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of a Resident's discharge, and failed to ensure that a discharge summary was completed by a Resident's physician. This finding was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #62 and #171) out of 3 residents reviewed for discharge process during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to initiate wound care upon admission for a Resident with Pressure Ulcers. This was evident for 1 (Resident #191) out of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews, and review of medical record documentation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe and effective system for securing medication, treatment supplies, and hazardous medical equipment in their designated carts on nursing units with residents with documented cognitive deficits and wandering behaviors. This practice was noted on 8/31/22 and included five (5) medication/treatment carts that were observed unlocked and unattended. The facility's failure to secure medications and treatment supplies was evident throughout the facility's two (2) nursing units. The deficient practice was observed on 4 out of 4 medication carts and 1 of 3 treatment carts. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure that 2. medications and biologicals were labeled with and dated after opened and medications stored in medication storage areas were unexpired. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' medications were documented at the time of administration, including high risk medications, resulting in a consistent and widespread pattern of medications being documented inaccurately and hours after they were due. This involved multiple staff on all shifts and on both units. This was evident for 5 (Residents #21, #61, #35, #25, and #73) out of 5 residents reviewed in detail for timely medication administration but was also noted in every medication administraion record (MAR) seen during the survey. This practice has the potential to impact all residents. Documentation is an integral part of medication administration. Documentation communicates the timing, dosing, and effect of any and all medications received by a patient. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and review of resident medical records and interview with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that there was sufficient nursing staff to: 1) provide for timely and accurate documentation of residents' administered medications. This was evident for 5 (Residents #21, #61, #35, #25, and #73) out of 5 residents reviewed for timely administration of medications. 2) provide sufficient staff to care for residents. This is evident for 2 out of 2 complaints (Resident # 95 and # 81), 3) to answer the call bell in a timely manner. This was found to be evident for 6 (resident #5, #35, #49, #57, 208 and #309) out of 20 residents observed for call bell response time during the Annual Survey, and 4) have the required number of nursing staff to care for residents resulting in delayed resident care and documentation of care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview with facility staff and observation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain consistent and accurate documentation in the residents' medical records related to care, notification and behaviors respectively. This was evident in 4 of 70 medical records (#99, 95, 26, and #29) reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary environment to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection as evidenced by: 1) lack screening for visitors upon entrance to the facility and 2) staff did not wear face mask appropriately. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 1 staff members observed during a facility tour and 4 out of 4 surveyors upon entrance to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and facility staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to designate at least one Infection Preventionist who is responsible for the facility's Infection Prevention and Control Program. This was evident during the Infection Control portion of the recertification survey. An interview held with the Interim ADON/IP (Assistant Director of Nursing/ Infection Preventionist), RN#3, on 8/30/2022 at 10:00 AM stated that she started working at the facility two weeks prior to the beginning of the survey and is assisting with the IP role during her time at this facility. On 9/12/2022 at 8:45 AM an interview was held with the Human Resources (HR) Director, Staff #50, revealed that the previous IP's, RN #61, last day worked was 5/19/2022. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure that each resident or responsible party (RP) received education regarding benefits and risk and document that the residents or the responsible party were provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the influenza and pneumococcal immunization and 2) that the resident either received the influenza immunization or did not receive the influenza immunization due to medical contraindications or refusal. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #52) reviewed for immunization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the dignity of a resident as evidenced by the resident's uncovered urine catheter bag lying on the floor uncovered, under the resident's bed. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #20) out of 13 residents observed during a tour of the nursing unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident medical record, interview with resident representatives and facility staff, and review of facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure that Resident #96's shower preferences were obtained at the beginning of his/her stay; and 2) failed to have access to the facility's communication system. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #96) of 4 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) and 2 out of 20 residents (Resident #26, and #44) reviewed during the annual survey. The evidence includes: 1) The surveyor interviewed Resident #96's responsible party (RP) on 9/19/22 at 11:13 AM. During the interview, the RP indicated that Resident #96 was never given a shower during their 30+ day stay. The surveyor reviewed Resident #96's medical record on 9/19/22 at 11:18 AM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident medical record and interview with facility staff and residents' representatives, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that physicians and residents' representatives were notified when the resident sustained a change in condition. This was evident for 2 (Resident #75 and #7) of 10 residents reviewed for change in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and review of pertinent facility policies and documentation, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent incidents of abuse and neglect. This was evident during the review of 2 of 19 abuse investigations, including complaints and facility reported incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility documentation review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to timely report investigations to the Survey Agency, which is the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) within 24 hours of an alleged incident and the final report within 5 working days. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #26, and #54) out of 19 residents reviewed for abuse during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, administrative record review and review of the Facility Reported Incident (FRI) investigation documentation it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate incidents of alleged physical abuse and allegations of neglect. This was evident for 3 out 19 residents (Resident #26, #24 and #70) reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of recent facility discharge practices and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents and or their representative (RP) with the proper paper documentation of the facilities bed hold policy. This was evident for 3 of 3 (#24, 67 and 74) resident records reviewed regarding unexpected hospitalizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, review of facility reported incidents and interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure that care plans were revised as required. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #49 and #69) out of 20 residents reviewed for Care Plans during the Annual Survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide resident with identified assistance for activities of daily living (ADL) as identified in the resident's care plans. This was evident for 2 of 3 (#73, 74) residents reviewed for ADL's.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) ensure ordered splints were in place, 2) failed to administer a medication as ordered by the physcian. This was evident for 2 (Resident #24 and #42) of 19 residents reviewed for neglect during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident medical record, it was determined that the facility failed to intervene when a newly identified stage 2 pressure ulcer was found on Resident #75's skin. This was evident for 1 (Resident #75) of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of resident medical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address a significant weight loss for a resident. This was evident for 3 (Residents #76, #42 and #55) of 5 residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to establish and made understood the roles and responsibilities for the Nurses functioning in the role of Director of Nursing (DON) in their absence.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of medication administration, interview with facility staff, and review of medication administration records and facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to have a medication administration rate of less than 5 percent during the medication administration facility task. Out of 26 observed medications administered, 2 medications were split by a soiled communal pill cutter, resulting in an error rate of 7.96%. This involved 2 of 4 residents (Resident #208 and Resident #7), 1 of 1 Certified Medication Aide (CMA) and 1 of 2 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN #7) that were observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, review of other pertinent documentation and survey findings, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that effective quality assessment and assurance performance improvement policies and procedures were implemented to ensure deficiencies were not repeated and residents remained in a safe, enriching, and comfortable environment. This was found to be evident during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews, review of other pertinent documentation and survey findings, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that effective quality assessment and assurance performance improvement interventions were implemented to address identified quality deficiencies. This was found to be evident during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical records and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to do a monthly medication review on Resident #3 and Resident #6's medications. This was evident for 2 out of 5 residents investigated for unnecessary medications during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff and responsible party interviews, it was determined the nursing staff failed to notify the designated responsible party of changes in Resident # 47's condition during a hospital transfer. This was evident in 1 out of 29 residents reviewed during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on the medical record, the facility staff failed to provide written notice to Resident #40, #63, 61 and 47 or the resident's Responsible Party, of a transfer out of the facility. This was evident for 4 out of 4 residents investigated for hospitalizations during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBase on chart review and interview with the Admissions Director, The facility failed to send out a bed hold policy to the Responsible Party of Resident # 63. This was evident for 1 out of 3 resident medical records reviewed as transferred to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to revise and update the care plan for Resident #47 after a change in condition. This was evident 1 out of 23 resident's involving Resident #47 during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on investigations of the medication storage areas, it was determined the facility staff failed to dispose of out dated medical supplies and label another. This was evident for 1 out of 2 medication storage rooms inspected during the survey, and 1 out of 3 medication carts inspected.
24 fire safety citations on file: 11 on June 30, 2025, 8 on September 21, 2022, 5 on December 17, 2018.
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) | 3.42 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.56 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.91 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.58 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.28 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.2% | 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 3.63 on weekdays and 2.91 on weekends, 20% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.39 in April to June 2025 to 3.42 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 | 3.42 | 0.56 | 3.63 | 2.91 | 3.1% | 0 of 90 | 68 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.49 | 0.66 | 3.67 | 3.01 | 3.2% | 0 of 92 | 67 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.55 | 0.62 | 3.74 | 3.08 | 5.3% | 0 of 92 | 65 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.39 | 0.62 | 3.59 | 2.89 | 4.0% | 0 of 91 | 63 |
| 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 | 43.0 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 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 | 49.9 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.8 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.4 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.0 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.9 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Restore Health Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (66.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
66.2% 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. 407 eligible stays.
16.6% this home
Worse than 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. 444 eligible stays.
7.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Maryland: 5 better, 6 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 291 eligible stays.
43.3% 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. 127 residents counted.
0.5% 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. 194 residents counted.
12.1% 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. 194 residents counted.
95.5% 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. 132 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: WHITE PLAINS 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 |
| Green, Calanthia | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/21/2018 | |
| Green, Calanthia | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/21/2018 |
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.