6600 Ridge Road, Baltimore, MD 21237 · Baltimore County · (410) 574-4950
172 certified beds, about 165 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1977
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215109 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 21, 2025, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 73 health citations since March 2019, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 7 fines totaling $198,937 in the last three years; the largest was $157,249, and the latest is dated May 15, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.13 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.77 of those hours.
42.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Atlas Healthcare, an affiliated group of 30 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 73 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of a complaint, medical records, interviews, and facility investigative documents, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system to prevent 2 residents with cognitive impairment, exit-seeking behavior, and an assessed risk for elopement from leaving the facility without appropriate supervision. This failure placed both residents at risk for harm due to hazards, including no sidewalk, which forced them into a road, which led them to a heavily traveled road and one resident not being properly dressed. These actions resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (cited as past non-compliance). This was evident for 2 (Resident #6, #7) out of 8 residents reviewed for elopement/wandering risk during a complaint survey. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following this incident prior to the start of this survey. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on documentation review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure nurse aide competency training occurred no less than 12 hours per year as determined in nurse aides' performance reviews. This was evident for 5 of 5 personnel files reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, the facility staff failed to ensure residents had a curtain to maintain privacy during care. This was evident for 2 (Resident #10 and #13) of 25 residents observed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, facility documentation review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain an effective grievance system for residents. This was evident for 1 (Resident #10) of 4 residents reviewed for complaints during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to report an incident of elopement to the state survey agency, the Office of Health Care Quality. This was evident for 2 (Resident #6, #7) of 8 residents reviewed for elopement during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 3 (#6, #2, #17) of 24 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to 1) assess a resident's wounds weekly to include measurements and 2) failed to follow wound care provider's orders for a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #8) of 3 residents reviewed for wound care during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, 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 3 (#6, #7, #10) of 10 residents reviewed for complaints during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to serve food in a sanitary manner. This was evident during the initial tour of the kitchen during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure governing body oversight of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program and activities. This was evident during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observations and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. This was found to be evident during the facility's recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident's physician and resident representatives of a facility acquired pressure ulcer. This was true for 1 (Resident #9) of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcer during the recertification/complaint survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and/or resident's representative of the facility policy for bed hold, including reserve bed payment. This was evident for 1(Resident #10) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on Observation, record review and facility staff interviews, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to update the care plan of Resident #2 who is on isolation precaution to reflect the actual status of the isolation and, 2) failed to conduct care plan meetings of the interdisciplinary team for Resident #11 at the time of the quarterly revision of their care plan. This was evident for 2 (Resident #2 and #11) out of 56 residents reviewed for care plans during this recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a complaint, record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to administer medications to a resident timely, and as ordered by the physician. This was evident for 1 (Resident #105) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview it was determined the facility failed to assist with feeding for a resident at risk for aspiration. This was evident for 1 (Resident #16) of 2 residents reviewed for Nutrition during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) maintain a nasal cannula in a sanitary manner and administer Oxygen according to the prescribed physician order (Residents #6), and 2) failed to provide necessary respiratory care services for Resident #30. This was evident for 2 (Residents #6 and #30) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure parameters used to determine if a resident was to be administered pain medication was adhered to by nursing staff, and failed to have a physician's order for non- pharmacological interventions for residents on pain medications. This was evident for 3 (Resident #6 and #84, #4) out of 3 residents reviewed for pain during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report irregularities identified by the pharmacist to the attending physician for follow up. This was evident for 1 (Resident #7) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1) ensure treatment carts were locked and secure, and 2) failed to store all drugs in a locked compartment as required. This was evident for 1 out of the 4 nursing units observed in the facility during the recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to 1) maintain a medical record in the most accurate form for residents and 2) maintain medical records for residents from other licenses professionals. This was evident for 2 (Resident #12 and #11) out of 46 residents reviewed during the facility's recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents and/or residents' representative (RP) were provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the pneumococcal and/or influenza immunization. This was evident for 2 (Resident #26 and #12) out of the 5 residents reviewed for immunizations during the facility's recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff were provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. This was evident for 1 (Staff #30) out of 5 staff members reviewed for immunizations during the facility's recertification/complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and other pertinent documentation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that a resident's wishes regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were clearly and accurately communicated to facility staff. This was found to be evident for 3 out of 7 residents reviewed for advance directives or death. (#184, #53, and #91) This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #184.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for residents within the regulatory time frames to facilitate appropriate care planning and maintain current assessment records. This was evident for 11 (#85, #28, #65, #183, #59, #54, #43, #77, #18, #63, #3) of 67 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that maintenance concerns are reported and addressed. This was found to be evident for rooms in 3 out of the 4 units in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff 1) failed to complete comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within the regulatory time frames to facilitate appropriate care planning and maintain current and accurate assessment records, and 2) failed to failed to assess a resident's cognition and mood on comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessments. This was evident for 8 (#98, #281, #130, #245, #282, #235, #241 and #54) of 67 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 1 (#91) of 2 residents reviewed for dental status, 1 (#98) of 3 residents reviewed for resident assessment, 2 (#65, #54) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 1 (#129) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to develop and implement comprehensive, person-centered care plans, with measurable goals and non-pharmacological approaches. This was found to be evident for for 1 (#63) of 4 residents reviewed for position and mobility, and 2 (#54, #21) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that facility 1) failed to ensure interdisciplinary team meetings to review and revise the care plans following each assessment, 2) failed to evaluate and update a resident's plan of care after each assessment and 3) failed to ensure that a resident and resident representative, if applicable, had the opportunity to participate in the development, review, and revision of his/her care plan after each assessment. This was evident for 4 (#53, #59, #54, #235) of 6 residents reviewed for care plan timing and revision, 1 (#68) of 6 residents reviewed for communication and sensory problems, and 1 (#106) of 2 residents reviewed for behavioral and emotional status and 1 (#21) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review, and interviews with the staff, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement an activities program to meet the needs and preferences of residents. This was evident for 4(#43, #71, #63, #91) of 6 residents reviewed for activites.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that the attending physician reviewed and responded to pharmacist identified irregularities and recommendations in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (#65) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, and 1 (#53) of 2 residents reviewed for insulin
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that primary care and specialty provider notes were placed in the medical record for review by other health care professionals. This was found to be evident for 1 (#106) of 2 residents reviewed for behavioral and emotional status, 2 (#63, #59) of 6 residents reveiwed for communication and sensory problems, 1 (#53) of 2 residents reviewed for insulin, and 2 (#184, #183) of 20 residents reviewed for facility reported incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a dependent resident was groomed in a manner that preserved the resident's dignity. This was evident for 1 (# 71) of 2 residents reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to ensure that the resident was informed of their right to formulate an advance directive. This was evident for 2 (#54, and #235) of 5 residents reviewed for advance directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility staff 1) failed to notify a provider of a blood sugar level outside an order's acceptable range for a resident, and 2) failed to notify the physician immediately following an accident that had the potential for requiring physician intervention. This was evident for 1 (#65) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, and 1 (#245) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) to residents who were discharged from Medicare Part A services but had benefit days remaining and intended to remain at the nursing facility receiving non-skilled care. This was evident for 2 (#31, #106) of 3 residents reviewed for Skilled Nursing Facility Beneficiary Protection Notification.
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. This was evident for 1 (#132) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents, and 1 (#241) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to document what preparation and orientation was given to residents to ensure an orderly transfer to an acute care facility. This was evident for 1 (#241) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident representative in writing of the bed-hold policy upon transfer of the resident to an acute care facility. This was evident for 1 (#132) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents, and 1 (#241) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a new Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was completed when it was determined that a resident would remain in the facility for long term care. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #63) out of 1 resident reviewed for PASRR during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and resident and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide a resident and/or a resident's representative with a summary of the baseline care plan that included a summary of the resident's medications. This was evident for 2 (#54, #235) of 6 residents reviewed careplanning.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and pertinent document review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide incontinent care to a dependent resident. This was evident for 1 (#282) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure injury.
Inspectors wrote3) Review of Resident #183's medical record revealed the resident was originally admitted in February 2023 with a brief re-hospitalization in March 2023. The resident's diagnosis included, but was not limited to, multiple myeloma (blood cancer), Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart disease and blindness. Review of the 3/11/23 hospital discharge report revealed one of the medications at the time of discharge was pomalidomide 4 MG take one capsule by mouth daily for 21 days followed by a 7 day rest period. Pomalidomide, also known as Pomalyst, is an anticancer medication used to treat multiple myeloma. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2023 revealed there was an order to start Pomalidomide 4 mg one time a day for cancer until 4/1/23, take for for 21 days and rest 7 days. This medication was not administered on 3/12/23 and was discontinued on 3/13/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure that orders for eye doctor and audiology appointments were scheduled in a timely manner. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #68 and #59) of 5 residents reviewed for vision and hearing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility 1) failed to ensure splints for the prevention of contracture development were re-implemented after a resident was re-admitted after a brief hospitalization, and 2) failed to ensure that a resident with a limited range of motion received treatment and services as ordered by the attending provider to prevent further decline in the range of motion. This was evident for 2 (#63, #43) of 4 residents reviewed for position and mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on pertinent document review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately document and address a physician's recommendation for a resident to receive a urology consult. This was evident for 1 ( #38) of 1 resident reviewed for urinary catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain respiratory care equipment for a resident who required continuous oxygen via nasal cannula. This was evident for 1 (#85) out of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that a facility provider failed to make their visit notes available after a visit with a resident (resident #515). This was evident for 1 (#515) of 4 residents reviewed for provider visit note availability during a facility's revisit survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure recommendations from the psychiatric provider was reported to the primary care provider and failed to ensure abnormal behaviors were reported to either the primary care provider or the psychiatric provider in a timely manner. This was found to be evident for 1(#106) of two residents reviewed for behavioral health services during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to keep a resident's drug regimen free from unnecessary drugs by 1) failing to ensure orders for a topical anesthetic patch included the duration the patch should be applied, and 2) failing to implement physician orders for blood pressure and pulse parameters prior to administering a blood pressure medication. This was evident for 1 (#21) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary medication by administering psychotropic medications without adequate monitoring for behavior. This was evident for 2 (#54, #21) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and pertinent document review, the facility staff failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent for 3 (#287, #292, #42) of 5 residents observed with 31 medication administration opportunities which resulted in a error rate of 9.6 percent.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain locked carts where medications were stored. This was evident for 3 carts out of 9 carts observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) have a physical barrier between the clean and soiled areas of the laundry room to prevent cross-contamination and 2) clean/replace a dirty nebulizer mask. This was evident for 2 out of 2 observations of the laundry room and 1 ( #65) of 2 residents observed for oxygen use.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of facility self report MD00181520 investigation documentation, medical records, observations, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure nursing staff had the appropriate competencies and skills to access a permacath for the IV administration of antibiotics. This was found to be evident for 1 (#184) of 2 residents reviewed for death during the survey. This deficient practice led to an immediate jeopardy for Resident #184. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following this incident. The facility's plan and action were verified during this survey, therefore this deficiency will be cited as past noncompliance. The date of correction was 8/14/22.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review it was determined that the facility failed to provide residents with an environment that was free from abuse. Due to this deficient practice Resident #505 suffered physical and psychosocial harm. This was evident for 1 (MD00204162) of 2 facility reported incidents of abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documents and staff interview, it was determined the facility 1) failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency, the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ), immediately but not later than 2 hours of the allegation. This was evident for 2 (#235, #383) of 21 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility investigation documentation, medical records and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that abuse allegations were thoroughly investigated. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #3, #34) of 21 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the physician failed to show evidence of admission assessment for 4 Residents. This is evident for 4 of 6 resident's (Resident #46, #59, #66 and #82) reviewed during the annual survey for physician services.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain a medical record in the most accurate form for a resident. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #59) reviewed for accurate medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident received meal services at a time that would allow full participation in dialysis treatment. This was true for 1 out of 2 residents (Resident #145) reviewed for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the physician the results of a potentially toxic Keppra blood level in a timely manner for a resident. This was evident for 1 of 56 residents (Resident #254) selected for review during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, staff interview and resident interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior. This was observed on 2 of 4 resident units.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was completed in a timely fashion. This was true for 1 out of the 56 residents (Resident #145) selected for review.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to initiate, provide and implement comprehensive care plans for residents. This was evident for 2 of 56 residents (Residents #70 and #93) selected for review of care plans during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to thoroughly review dental recommendations for Resident #23 and act upon those recommendations. This was evident for 1 of 56 residents selected for dental review.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to aid with meals for Residents #26 and #29 and failed to provide thorough grooming and personal hygiene services for Resident #68. This is evident for 3 of 3 residents selected for review for ADL care during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility incident report review, resident interview, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident was free from an accident or hazard. This was true for 3 out of 5 residents (Resident #256, #16 and #78) reviewed for a complaint.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff the failed to provide Resident #35 with the physician ordered diet. This was evident for 1 of 10 residents selected for review of nutrition and during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the clinical records and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to document the administration of pain medication and monitor the effectiveness. This was true for 1 out of the 6 residents (Resident #255) reviewed for pain management during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased upon staff interview and medical record review it was determined the facility staff failed to assist a resident in obtaining routine dental care and failed to ensure the recommendations of the dentist were carried out. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #29) selected for review of dental services during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview and record review it was determined that the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in safe operating condition.
32 fire safety citations on file: 10 on November 21, 2025, 21 on February 2, 2024, 1 on March 29, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2026 | Fine | $19,640 |
| February 2, 2024 | Fine | $157,249 |
| February 2, 2024 | Payment Denial | 9 days from May 6, 2024 |
| December 11, 2023 | Fine | $10,489 |
| November 20, 2023 | Fine | $2,797 |
| November 13, 2023 | Fine | $2,470 |
| November 6, 2023 | Fine | $2,098 |
| October 17, 2023 | Fine | $4,194 |
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) | 3.13 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.77 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.69 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.63 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.73 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 41.7% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.16 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 3.30 on weekdays and 2.69 on weekends, 18% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.50 in April to June 2025 to 3.13 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 | 3.13 | 0.77 | 3.30 | 2.69 | 0.6% | 0 of 90 | 165 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.41 | 0.78 | 3.53 | 3.11 | 0.3% | 0 of 92 | 150 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.51 | 0.72 | 3.68 | 3.10 | 0.3% | 0 of 92 | 146 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.50 | 0.79 | 3.65 | 3.13 | 0.3% | 0 of 91 | 143 |
| 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 | 4.0 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 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 | 7.0 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.2 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.5 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Rossville Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (60.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.9% 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. 358 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. 358 eligible stays.
7.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Maryland: 5 better, 6 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 264 eligible stays.
53.6% 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. 179 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 248 residents counted.
2.4% 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. 248 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. 118 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: ROSSVILLE SNF OPERATIONS LLC. CMS links this home to Atlas Healthcare, a group of 30 nursing homes averaging 3.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trr SNF Operations Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/01/2023 |
| Jmh Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Jmh Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Mls Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Mls Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sgs Family LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sgs Family Trust | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Oppenheimer, Aaron | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Bak, Pinchos | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Trr Opco Manager LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Bak, Pinchos | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Beletskiy, Isaac | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Goldberger, Shlomo | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Ngwu, Amarachi | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Oppenheimer, Aaron | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Salazar, Andres | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sonnenschein, Moshe | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Jmh Family LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Jmh Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Malt Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Mls Family LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Mls Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sgs 2010 Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sgs Family LLC | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sgs Family Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Tyh 2017 Trust | Limited partnership interest | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Oppenheimer, Aaron | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Hirsch, Hadassa | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Isaac, Chaim | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sonnenschein, Moshe | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| 509 East Joppa Road Realty LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/26/2025 | |
| Jmh Family LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Jmh Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Mls Family LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Mls Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sgs Family LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sgs Family Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Trr Opco Manager LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/26/2025 | |
| Trr SNF Realty Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Bak, Pinchos | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Beletskiy, Isaac | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Goldberger, Shlomo | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Ngwu, Amarachi | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Oppenheimer, Aaron | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Salazar, Andres | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Sonnenschein, Moshe | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 |
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.