141 South Main Street, Boonsboro, MD 21713 · Washington County · (301) 432-5457
157 certified beds, about 126 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1983
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215144 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 6, 2026, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 39 health citations since November 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $22,205 in the last three years; the largest was $22,205, and the latest is dated April 22, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.39 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.64 of those hours.
47.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 39 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on a pertinent document review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) transport crew with the correct Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) for a resident being transported to the hospital, This deficient practice contributed to the resident not receiving life-sustaining treatment prior to cardiac arrest and resulted in the resident's death during transport. This was evident for one (Resident #200) of one resident reviewed for an unexpected death during a complaint survey. Consequently, an Immediate Jeopardy was called on [DATE] at 3:26 PM.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain food service equipment in a manner that ensures sanitary food service operations to prevent possible foodborne illness. This was evident during the kitchen tour of the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene when entering and exiting a room in which a resident was on neutropenic precautions. This was evident for 1 (Resident #84) of 1 resident on neutropenic precautions reviewed during the initial screening process of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observation, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a clean, homelike environment. This was evident in 2 (Resident #4 and Resident #103) of 2 residents' rooms reviewed during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide a bed hold notice and hospital transfer documents to a resident and failed to provide written notice of the hospital transfer to resident's representative. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure bathroom and floor tiles were maintained in good repair and that the exhaust ventilation system was working. This was found to be evident on 4 out of 4 units observed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records, facility policies, investigation documentation, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that allegations involving abuse were reported to the State Agency no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made and results of all investigations were reported within 5 working days. This was evident for 5 (Resident #421, #214, #468, #469, #264) of 13 residents reviewed for abuse allegations.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an allegation of abuse. This was evident for 4 (Resident #416, #264, #213 #44) in 13 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, resident and staff interviews, and medical records review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to adequately meet residents' personal hygiene needs and provide a resident with the amount of assistance needed during meals. This was evident for 5 (Residents #10, #68, #66, #62, #369) of 5 residents reviewed for activities of daily living during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on records review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to: a) ensure the attending physician address irregularities identified on the pharmacy recommendation, b) implement the attending physician's response to the pharmacy recommendation, and c) specify timeframes in the steps of the Medication Regimen Review (MRR) process. This was evident in 2 (Resident #38, #21) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to comply with the State and Local Laws and Professional Standards as evidenced by: 1) a failure to ensure a registered nurse (RN) was on duty 24 hours a day 7 days a week and 2) a failure to maintain Hours Per Patient Day (HPPD) above 3.0. This was evident for: 1) 8 out of 16 days reviewed for RN coverage and 2) 13 out of 106 days reviewed for low staffing.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to inform and provide written information to all residents concerning their right to formulate an advance directive. This was evident for 1(Resident #68) out of 3 residents reviewed for advanced directives during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint, closed record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify Resident #217's representative in a timely manner after a significant change occurred. This was evident for 1 out of 24 complaints reviewed during an annual certification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the required transfer information was documented in the medical record when a resident was transferred to the hospital. This was evident for 1 (Resident #267) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for a resident within the regulatory time frames to facilitate appropriate care planning and maintain the current assessment record. This was evident for 1 (Resident #42) in 3 residents reviewed for Resident assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete and submit Minimum data set (MDS) Discharge assessments as required for residents discharged from the facility. This was evident for 3 (#105, #112, #64) of 4 residents reviewed for Resident assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately documented. This was evident for 1 (#66) of 7 residents reviewed for position and mobility and 1 (Resident #111) of 4 residents reviewed for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) form completed at the time of admission appropriately reflected the resident's diagnosis. This was true for 1 (Resident #16) of 2 PASARR forms reviewed for accuracy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the resident and their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan. This was evident for 3 (Residents #34, #74, and #101) of 6 residents reviewed for baseline care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and pertinent document review it was determined that the facility failed to provide activities according to the resident's preferences. This was evident for 1 (Resident #91) out of 3 residents reviewed for activities during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, complaint MD00211139 and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents received the appropriate treatment as ordered, in accordance with professional standards of practice. This is true for 2 (Resident #21 and Resident #110) of 3 residents reviewed during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents with limited range of motion received treatment and services to prevent further decline in the range of motion. This was evident for 2 (#66, #62) out of 7 residents reviewed for position and mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews and facility record review, it was determined that the facility failed to 1.) ensure that a safe designated space for smoking was maintained in various weather conditions and 2.)to carry out a physician's order to check the placement of a residents wonder guard every shift for placement. This was true for 1 of 2 resident smoking observations conducted and for 1 (Resident #91) out of 8 Residents reviewed for accidents during a survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that weekly weights were obtained as ordered by the physician. This was evident for 1(Resident #24) of 6 resident records reviewed for significant weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to document the reasons for administering as-needed (PRN) pain medications and failed to document pain assessment to include the location of the pain and type of pain for a Resident reporting pain. This was evident for 1 (Resident #97) of 5 Residents reviewed for unnecessary medications review.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a history of trauma received the appropriate trauma-informed care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #97) of 4 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure staff maintained current certification and or licensure. This was evident for 1(Staff #41) of 5 Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) certification records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to keep resident's drug regimens free from unnecessary medications by failing to ensure residents received their medications according to the attending physician's orders. This was evident for 1 (Resident #97) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, and 1 (Resident #102) out of 5 residents observed during medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medication use by failing to adequately monitor a resident for behaviors, side effects, or adverse consequences related to psychotropic medication use. This was evident for 1 (Resident #97) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5%. This was evident based on two errors identified out of 28 opportunities for error.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that expired medications were disposed of promptly per the manufacturer's specifications. This was evident for 1 of 4 medication refrigerator storage observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective process in place to ensure that adaptive devices that were recommended by therapy were provided to a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 5) observed during the dining observation portion of the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to complete the resident matrix accurately. This was evident in 2 of 3 resident matrix reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff use appropriate infection control practices. This was evident for 1 (Resident #38) of 1 resident reviewed for tube feeding and 1 out of 2 medication administrations observed and has the potential to affect all residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have documented evidence that all nurses' aides received 12 hours of training that included abuse prevention and Dementia management, annually and training needed to provide competent care. This was evident for 5 (GNAs #25, #37, #39, #41, and #50) of 5 randomly selected nursing staff reviewed for competencies.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to void an older MOLST form located in a resident's active medical record. This was evident for 1 (Resident #112) of 2 residents reviewed for Advance Directives during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment. This deficient practice has the potential to affect multiple residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of administrative records and staff interview, it was determined that the nursing administrative staff failed to conduct a yearly performance review on 3 of 5 geriatric nursing assistants for the year of 2018.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, it was determined the facility staff failed to properly store medications. This was observed once during an annual recertification survey.
28 fire safety citations on file: 10 on March 6, 2026, 11 on December 20, 2024, 7 on November 1, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 22, 2026 | Fine | $22,205 |
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) | 3.39 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.64 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.11 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.68 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.07 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 47.6% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.99 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 3.50 on weekdays and 3.11 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 16.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.37 in April to June 2025 to 3.39 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 | 3.39 | 0.64 | 3.50 | 3.11 | 16.3% | 0 of 90 | 126 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.37 | 0.61 | 3.50 | 3.04 | 11.5% | 0 of 92 | 120 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.36 | 0.68 | 3.52 | 2.95 | 7.9% | 0 of 92 | 115 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.37 | 0.80 | 3.53 | 2.95 | 5.5% | 0 of 91 | 113 |
| 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 | 19.8 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 33.9 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.4 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.5 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.6 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for South Mountain Rehab Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (57.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
57.3% 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. 343 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 315 eligible stays.
5.6% 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. 227 eligible stays.
55.7% 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. 149 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 220 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 220 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. 37 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: SM REHAB.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glen Echo Holdings LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Md Sans Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Md Sans Mars 2024 Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Md Sans Venus 2024 Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Oberon Core Holdings | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Zambry Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Zambry Mars 2024 Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Zambry Venus 2024 Trust | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Cibc Bank USA | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Glen Echo Holdings LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Hornung, Steven | 5% or greater security interest | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Kaminer, Aaron | 5% or greater security interest | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Bohrer-Banzhoff, Nicole | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Salazar, Andres | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Stine, Terri | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Cibc Bank USA | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Healthcare Services Group Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Bohrer-Banzhoff, Nicole | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Cline, Carrie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Hornung, Rachelle | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 03/31/2025 | |
| Kaminer, Leora | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 03/31/2025 | |
| Accord Consultants | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Brand Sonnenschine LLP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Cibc Bank USA | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Dialyze Direct Md LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Healthcare Services Group Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Md Sapphire LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| One Kaylor Circle Md LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Schiavi Wallace & Rowe PC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Z-Radar LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Bohrer-Banzhoff, Nicole | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/02/2025 | |
| Cline, Carrie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Salazar, Andres | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Sladky, Serina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Stine, Terri | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Maryland. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.