3320 Benson Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21227 · Baltimore City County · (667) 600-2600
162 certified beds, about 147 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215044 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 26, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 43 health citations since October 2019, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $66,996 in the last three years; the largest was $50,655, and the latest is dated August 29, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.98 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.87 of those hours.
66.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Vierra Communities, an affiliated group of 3 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 43 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that refrigerated food items were consistently labeled and dated with preparation and expiration dates to maintain sanitary storage conditions and prevent the potential for serving unsafe food. This deficient practice was identified during the initial and follow-up tours of the kitchen during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care services for residents that meets professional standards. This was evident for 6 residents (Resident #161, #121, #162,#118, #160, and #2 ) out 9 reviewed for respiratory services during the annual survey. The findings Include:1) On 02/19/2026 at 9:29 AM, during the initial tour of the facility, Resident #161 was observed lying in bed receiving oxygen via nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set at 4.5 liters per minute (LPM). On 02/19/2026 at 11:30 AM, review of the resident's electronic health record (EHR) revealed no active physician order for oxygen therapy or oxygen flow rate. An order dated 02/18/2026 stated: Change, Date & Initial O2 tubing & Humidifier bottle weekly & PRN every night shift every Wed for Infection Prevention. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure that food was served to residents at an appropriate and palatable temperature to ensure quality and safety. This deficient practice was identified during test tray observation on 1 (second floor) out of 2 floors during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents and/or their representatives were provided with written notice of hospital transfer and information regarding the facility's bed-hold policy. This was found evident for 2 (Residents #14 and #5) out of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to develop and/or update the comprehensive care plan to include oxygen therapy. This was evident for 1 (Resident #2) out of 5 residents observed for respiratory care during the annual survey. A care plan is a simple written plan that explains how to take care of a resident's health and daily needs. It lists what the resident needs help with, what their goals are, and what caregivers should do to help them. It makes sure everyone helping the resident knows the same plan so the care stays organized and consistent.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately and completely document a resident's pain as ordered by the physician. This was evident for 1 (Resident #119) of 1 resident reviewed for pain management.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were served meals according to the predetermined menu that incorporated resident preferences. This was evident for three residents (Residents #2, #63, and #163) out of four residents reviewed for concerns related to the food menu during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff and resident it was determined that the facility staff neglected his assigned patients and failed to provide care to them causing identified harm to a resident when the care was refused to be administered. This resulted in psychosocial harm to Resident #2 and was evident during the review of a facility reported incident reviewing documented neglected care of 13 (Residents #2, #29, #33, #39 #40 #30, # 31, #32, #34, #35, #36,# 37, and # 38 ) of 13 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and other pertinent documentation, observations, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to prevent avoidable falls. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #7) out of 2 residents reviewed for accidents during the survey. The fall resulted in actual harm to Resident #7.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to identify and provide needed care and services by 1) failing to respond timely when residents activated their call bells for assistance, and 2) failing to provide Gastrostomy Tube site care. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) of 17 residents reviewed for Quality of Care during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined the facility staff 1) failed to determine on admission if a resident had an advance directive and provide information about the right to formulate an advance directive; and 2) failed to identify a primary decision-maker for a resident determined not to have decision-making capacity. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) of 17 residents reviewed for Quality of Care and Treatment during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record and statement from Staff # 13, the facility failed to notify Responsible party after the Resident fell on 8/23/24. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 21) out of 1 resident reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews with resident, staff and review of the grievance process it was determined that the facility failed to give adequate responses to grievances presented by a resident/family regarding an allegation of neglect. This was found evident in the review a facility reported incident of neglect that was also a reported grievance from Resident #2 reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews it was determined the facility staff failed to report incidents within required timeframes. This was evident for 2 (#21 and #2) of 12 residents reviewed for neglect and 2 (#15 and #4) of 6 residents reviewed for abuse during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility staff failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse and neglect. This was evident for 2 (Residents #15 and #4) of 6 residents reviewed for abuse and for 1 (Resident #2) of 12 residents reviewed for neglect during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to complete accurate assessments of a resident related to the Brief interview of mental status (BIMS) assessment completed on the minimum data set (MDS). This was evident for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #2) reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to develop a comprehensive resident-centered care plan regarding the resident's pertinent diagnosis. This was evident for 1(Resident #5) of 17 residents reviewed for Quality of Care and for 1 (Resident #2) of 6 residents reviewed for Abuse during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to clean and change the brief of an incontinent resident. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident # 6) out of 5 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviews it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that Resident #25's personal hygiene needs were adequately met by offering and providing showers as scheduled. This was evident for 1 (Resident # 25) of 4 residents reviewed during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor a resident's hydration and nutrition status resulting in the resident's change in condition that led to the resident being transferred to the local hospital to be treated for dehydration. This was evident for 1 (Resident #17) of 3 residents reviewed for neglect during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain the medical record in the most complete and accurate form for a Resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #7) of 2 residents selected for review during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, review of the facility's investigation reports, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to supervise and provide a secure environment for a resident residing in a secure unit. These failures contributed to the resident eloping and placed the resident at increased risk for serious harm. This was evident for 1 (Residents #374) of 3 residents reviewed for 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 observations, interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clean carpets. This was found to be evident in many carpeted areas of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a facility reported incident and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to report the results of an alleged abuse investigation within five working days to the Office of Health Care Quality. This was evident for 4 (Resident #375, #29, #72, and #223) out of 12 residents investigated for abuse during the annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to identify the responsible party (RP) and notify them of changes. This was evident for 3 (Resident #382, #66, and #101) out of 57 residents reviewed for resident rights during the facility's annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to inform in advance of treatment changes. This was found evident for 1 (Resident #382) out of 18 residents reviewed for rights during the complaint portion of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the residents ' care with privacy and dignity when providing medications and administering care. This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident #111,114 and #143) out of 5 residents during medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews with the residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to answer call bells timely to attend to the needs of dependent residents. This was evident for 3 (Resident # 81, #106, and #382) out of 6 residents call history reports reviewed during the annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on facility investigations, record reviews, interviews, and observations, the facility failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #41 and #47) out of 12 residents investigated during for abuse and neglect during the annual and complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of facility investigation, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to suspend a staff member and prevent potential abuse while an abuse investigation was still being conducted. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #385) out of 12 Residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the local Ombudsman was notified of a facility initiated resident discharge or transfer. This was evident for 1 (Resident #25) out of 3 residents investigated for hospitalizations during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to code the resident's status accurately on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #63) out of 57 residents reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records, review of correspondences, and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have complete, appropriate documentation in the medical record to ensure the discharge needs of a resident were met. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #390) of 3 Residents reviewed for discharges.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for dependent residents. This was found evident in 1 (Resident #28) out of 3 Residents reviewed for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) cares.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews and interviews, it was determined that 1) the facility staff failed to maintain supervision of a resident to minimize the risk for falls. This was evident for 1 (Resident #224) out of 9 residents reviewed for accidents during the annual survey. 2) The facility staff failed to provide treatments according to a Resident ' s plan of care. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #382) out of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to post updated staffing information daily. This was found evident in 2 of 12 days observed on the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's Controlled Medication Shift Change Log and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that an account of all controlled drugs was completed. This was found to be evident for 6 out of 14 logs reviewed during medication administration observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to: 1) maintain a safe and effective system for securing medication and treatment supplies and 2) properly store and dispose of medications. This was found to be evident for 1) 3 out of 10 medication carts and 2) 2 of 2 medication storage rooms observed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place that assured accurate entry was completed to enable the ability for laboratory specimens to be processed by an outside company. This was found evident in 5 out of 8 laboratory samples reviewed for Resident #28.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food in a manner that maintains professional standards of food service safety. This practice had the potential to affect all residents eating food prepared by the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the staff sanitized medical equipment between residents. This was found to be evident for 4 out of 5 residents (Residents #111, #424, #426, and #114) observed for infection control.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews with staff and medical record reviews the facility failed to send out written notices to the responsible party for Resident numbers 123, 5, and 81 when discharged to the hospital . This was evident for 3 out of 3 residents transfered to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, medical record review and resident and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that fingernails were kept trimmed for Resident #2. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) during the survey.
38 fire safety citations on file: 14 on February 26, 2026, 19 on October 16, 2024, 5 on October 31, 2019.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 29, 2025 | Fine | $50,655 |
| October 16, 2024 | Fine | $16,341 |
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) | 3.98 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.87 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.43 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.30 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.81 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 66.7% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 60.0% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 3 |
CMS expects 4.09 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 4.20 on weekdays and 3.43 on weekends, 18% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 8.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.40 in April to June 2025 to 3.98 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 | 3.98 | 0.87 | 4.20 | 3.43 | 8.4% | 0 of 90 | 147 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.80 | 0.87 | 3.98 | 3.36 | 12.0% | 0 of 92 | 143 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.73 | 0.78 | 3.86 | 3.40 | 20.1% | 0 of 92 | 143 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.40 | 0.73 | 3.52 | 3.10 | 28.2% | 0 of 91 | 151 |
| 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 | 25.1 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 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 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 42.5 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.3 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.8 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.0 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for St. Elizabeth Rehabilitation & Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (64.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
64.7% 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. 581 eligible stays.
10.2% 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. 594 eligible stays.
6.1% 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. 374 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. 295 residents counted.
0.5% this home
Median of homes: Maryland0.4% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 382 residents counted.
4.4% 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. 382 residents counted.
97.1% 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. 204 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: ST. ELIZABETH OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Vierra Communities, a group of 3 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vucich, Derek | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Bangura, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Vucich, Derek | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Vucich, Derek | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Vucich, Joseph | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Vucich, Lois | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2024 | |
| Joseph L. Vucich Dynasty Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Parkway Financial and Accounting Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Schiavi Wallace & Rowe PC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| St. Elizabeth Propco Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| St. Elizabeth Propco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| The Wright Group Consulting, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2024 | |
| Bangura, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/10/2025 | |
| Khan, Sunniya | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/10/2025 |
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.