7525 Carroll Avenue, Takoma Park, MD 20912 · Montgomery County · (301) 270-4200
102 certified beds, about 95 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1999
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215327 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 20, 2025, inspectors cited 23 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 48 health citations since May 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $8,281 in the last three years; the largest was $8,281, and the latest is dated October 21, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.40 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.65 of those hours.
35.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Engage Healthcare, an affiliated group of 5 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 48 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide respect and dignity to residents by failing to knock on the resident's door prior to entering the resident's room. This was evident for 1 (Resident#17) out of 1 resident observed during complaint and recertification survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with the resident and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure clean, safe, and comfortable environment. This was evident for 2 (Resident #10 and Resident #71) of 2 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident and staff interviews, and record review conducted during the complaint investigation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident grievance regarding missing personal belongings were promptly addressed and resolved. This was evident for 1 (Resident #17) of 2 residents reviewed for grievances during the complaint and recertification survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure required notifications were completed during the resident transfer/discharge process. This was evident for 3 residents (Resident #4, Resident #34, and Resident #93) out of 6 total residents reviewed for transfer/discharge requirements during the complaint and recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible. This was evident for 1 (Resident #94) out of 1 resident reviewed for accidents during the investigation into facility reported incident #2988228.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews with the residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received meals consistent with their food preferences and physician's prescribed therapeutic diets. This was evident for 3 (Resident #10, Resident #38, and Resident #62) of 3 residents reviewed for dietary services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and review of facility reports it was determined that the facility failed to prevent a cognitively impaired Resident with exit seeking behaviors from exiting the facility. This was found to be evident for 1 (resident #5) out of 1 Resident reviewed for an elopement. The Maryland Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) determined that this concern met the Federal definition of Immediate Jeopardy Past Non-compliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medical records were provided when requested. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident # 8) out of 1 Resident reviewed for medical records during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed for an allegation of abuse. This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #2, & #7) out of 4 Residents investigated for abuse during the compliant survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure temperature monitoring of unit refrigerators used to store resident food brought in from outside sources; and facility failed to ensure potentially hazardous food items were cooled according to acceptable standards. This was found to be evident for 3 out of 3 refrigerators observed in resident areas; and during the initial tour of the main kitchen and has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and review of medical records and facility policy and procedures it was determined that the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions and perform hand hygiene when indicated; and failed to ensure linens were processed so as to prevent the spread of infection. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #19 and #66) out of 24 residents observed during the initial phase of the survey but has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to develop comprehensive person-centered care plans for each resident and failed to provide a resident with a timely comprehensive care plan. This was found to be evident for 4 (Resident #66, #19, #2 and #352) out of 42 resident's reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pertinent documentation and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to have comprehensive care plan meetings at the required intervals and failed to update the care plan after a change in status. This was evident for 3 (Resident # 8, #2 and #337) out of 42 residents reviewed during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and medical record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to safeguard resident's confidential medical records; failed to ensure medical records are kept accurate and current; and failed to ensure documentation of the certification of medical ineffectiveness before changing a resident's code status from a full code to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). This was evident for 4 (Resident #55, #51, # 16 and #66) out of 42 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on staff and resident medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide education and offer staff and residents the current COVID-19 vaccination. This was evident in four (Staff #28, #29, #30, and #31) out of four staff and two (Resident #66 and #48) out of five residents reviewed for immunization status.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity by failure to ensure a urinary catheter bag was maintained with a privacy cover. This was found to be evident during a random observation of Resident #49.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that information was provided to residents to formulate an advanced directive. This was evident for 2 (Resident #1, #10) of 7 residents reviewed for advanced directives during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pertinent documentation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have a procedure in place to provide the residents with written notifications concerning resolution to grievances. This was evident for all residents' grievance forms reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents received bed hold notices when they were transferred to the hospital. This was evident for 1 (Resident #38) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of resident medical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment when documenting pressure ulcers. This was evident in one (Resident #66) out of seven residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review it was determined that the facility failed to provide activities to meet the needs of the resident. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #2) out of 3 residents reviewed for activities during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, interview and observations it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure physician orders were put in the electronic health record for implementation, and failed to ensure orders and a care plan were established for the use of safety equipment. This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #12, #30 and #66) out of 42 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure wound treatment recommendations were implemented in a timely manner. This was evident for one (Resident #66) out of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, staff interview, and observation, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure therapist recommendations were implemented. This was evident for one (Resident #19) out of three residents reviewed for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for oxygen use. This was evident for 1 (Resident #287) of 6 residents reviewed for respiratory care during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that providers accurately reviewed residents' medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident #74) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have a resident seen by a physician for more than 9 months. This was evident in one (Resident #2) out of three residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to administer a resident's medication according to physicians ordered parameters. This was evident for 3 (Resident #51, #48 and #8) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were kept in locked compartments and maintained under proper temperature controls. This was found to be evident during one out of four medication pass observations (Resident #55), one random observation (Resident #354); and for two out of two medication storage rooms observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents who require dental services on a routine or emergent basis receive necessary or recommended dental services in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 1 resident reviewed for dental services during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately assess the resident population's needs. This was evident during a review of the Facility Assessment during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the walk-in freezer was kept in a safe operating condition. This was evident for 1 out of 1 walk in freezer in the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical records, interviews with residents, resident's representatives and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure timely interdisciplinary care conferences for residents. This finding was evident for 8 of 24 (#2, #3, #10, #11, #14, #48, #52, and #54) residents selected during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that residents and/or responsible parties were provided with a summary of the baseline care plan. This finding was evident for 2 of the 8 new admission/readmission residents selected for review during the survey (Residents #125 and #126).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical records and facility staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive resident centered care plan to meet residents' medical conditions. This finding was evident in 4 of 24 residents selected for review during the survey (Residents #3, #10, #11, and #64 ).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure nursing standards of practice for medication administration for Resident #126. This finding was evident for 1 of 24 residents selected for review during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, resident and facility staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide the necessary services to residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL). This finding was evident for 1 of 3 residents selected for review of ADL during the survey (Resident #14).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, surveyor observations and interview with Resident #126 and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation in residents' clinical records. This was evident for 2 of 24 residents selected in the survey (Resident #125, #126).
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and interview with the facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop a comprehensive plan of care for resident #55's anxiety and behavior problems. This finding was evident for 1 of 1 resident selected for the Behavioral-Emotional review.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observation, interview with facility staff, and clinical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to revise the fall risk plan of care for resident #60 after multiple falls. This finding was evident for 1 of 6 residents selected for the Accidents review.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that licensed staff failed to obtain physician clarification in medication administration via the gastrostomy tube (GT) for resident #45. This finding was evident for 1 of 2 residents selected for the Tube Feeding review.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record, review of the dialysis communication record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the monitoring of consistent and timely pre and post dialysis weights for resident #17. This finding was evident for 1 of 1 resident selected for the Dialysis review.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and interview with the facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure that the use of a psychotrophic medication prn (as needed) was not extended beyond 14 days for resident #55. This finding was evident for 1 of 1 resident selected for the Behavioral-Emotional review.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of the clinical record and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure accurate and complete clinical documentation in residents' clinical records. This finding was evident for 4 of 23 residents selected for review during the survey. (#41, #45, #62, #76)
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to store, prepare, and serve food under sanitary conditions. This finding was evident in the facility's kitchen during the initial tour.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor observations and facility staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a policy regarding the use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of administrative records and interview with the facility staff. it was determined that the facility failed to review and update their facility-wide assessment annually.
Inspectors wroteBased on surveyor review of clinical records and interviews with the resident and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide appropriate written notification of a resident's facility initiated hospital transfer to the resident and/or resident's responsible representative. This finding was evident for 3 of 3 residents selected for the Hospitalization review. (#62, 20, 45).
4 fire safety citations on file: 4 on May 10, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 21, 2025 | Fine | $8,281 |
| February 20, 2025 | Payment Denial | 17 days from April 6, 2025 |
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) | 3.40 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.65 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.16 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.00 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.74 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 35.6% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 21.4% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.71 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 3.49 on weekdays and 3.16 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.49 in April to June 2025 to 3.40 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 | 3.40 | 0.65 | 3.49 | 3.16 | 1.3% | 0 of 90 | 95 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.36 | 0.61 | 3.45 | 3.14 | 1.8% | 0 of 92 | 95 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.26 | 0.56 | 3.36 | 3.03 | 1.9% | 0 of 92 | 93 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.49 | 0.63 | 3.61 | 3.17 | 2.3% | 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 | 9.4 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.0 | 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 | 4.4 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.7 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.9 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Sligo Creek Healthcare's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (41.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
41.6% this home
Worse 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. 176 eligible stays.
8.5% 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. 174 eligible stays.
7.3% 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. 118 eligible stays.
64.5% 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. 62 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. 116 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. 116 residents counted.
94.0% 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. 50 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: WOODSIDE PARK MD OPCO. CMS links this home to Engage Healthcare, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 1.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woodside Park Md Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/01/2023 |
| Lighten, Jake | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 08/01/2023 |
| Paneth, Jack | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 50% | 08/01/2023 |
| Akinseye, Henry | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| Paneth, Jack | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2023 | |
| Lighten, Jake | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2023 |
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.