2300 Dulaney Valley Road, Timonium, MD 21093 · Baltimore County · (410) 252-4500
390 certified beds, about 340 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1978
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215117 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 28, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 47 health citations since May 2022 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.15 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.74 of those hours.
42.9% 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 47 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to: (1) ensure oxygen tubing and related oxygen delivery equipment were consistently dated and labeled in accordance with professional standards of practice; and (2) ensure a physician's order was available for oxygen administration for a resident receiving oxygen therapy. This deficient practice was evident for 5 (Residents #29, #87, #287, #3, and #6) of 5 residents reviewed for oxygen therapy during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a hospice care plan for a resident admitted to hospice services. This deficient practice was evident for 1 (Resident #17) of 1 resident reviewed for hospice services during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and review of records, it was determined that the facility failed to administer and document medications as prescribed. This was evident for 2 (Resident #173 and #200) out of 3 residents who were reviewed for medication administration during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, policy review, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to: (1) consistently maintain the required separate written reports of medication regimen review irregularities, and (2) ensure documentation was available to demonstrate that pharmacist-identified medication regimen review irregularities had been reviewed by the physician and that the physician had responded to those irregularities. This deficient practice was evident for 2 (Residents #2 and #5) of 5 residents reviewed for Medication Regimen Review during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents received routine dental services. This was evident for 1 (Resident #80) of 1 resident reviewed for dental services during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to: (1) maintain accurate and complete documentation related to residents' advance directives; and (2) ensure the accuracy of residents' medical records. This deficient practice was evident for 2 (Residents #245 and #319) of 2 residents reviewed for advance directives during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of Complaint #3092378, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain effective pest control measures to prevent and control rodent activity within the facility. This deficient practice was evident on 1 (Ground [NAME]) of 9 units observed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained for Resident #55 and Resident #84. This was evident for 2 residents out of 9 residents reviewed for activities of daily living during the facility's annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, staff interviews, and the facility's investigation, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure Resident #199 was free from verbal abuse by staff. This deficient practice was evident for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for abuse during the recertification survey. The facility implemented corrective measures following this incident, therefore, this deficiency will be cited as past noncompliance. The date of correction was 6/7/25.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse and an injury of unknown origin to the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) within the specified timeframe. This was evident for 2 residents (Resident #177 and Resident #161) out of 10 residents investigated for Facility Reported Incidents during this facility's annual survey.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the resident/resident representative (RP) in writing of a transfer/discharge of a resident along with the reason for the transfer. This was evident for 1 (#90) of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization during a recertification.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident who required a Hoyer lift for transfer was transferred correctly. This was evident for 1 (Resident #161) out of 8 residents reviewed during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that resident medical records were accurate. This was evident for 2 (Resident #310 and #84) out of 6 residents reviewed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to provide a safe and sanitary environment. This was evident for 3 residents (#161, #3, #55) out of 9 residents investigated during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents. This was evident for 1 unit out of 9 units investigated during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of facility reported incidents, complaint, record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to report allegations of abuse to the regulatory agency, the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) within 2 hours of the allegation and failed to report bruises of unknown origin to OHCQ. This was evident for 12 (#22, #24, #47, #4, #56, #34, #42, #7, #21, #25, #19, #36 ) of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility administrative records, facility investigations, complaint, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to thoroughly investigate incidents of alleged abuse, neglect, and bruises of unknown origin. This was evident for 10 (#22, #65, #47, #4, #56, #42, #7, #26, #19, #36) of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews with staff, and review of complaint, it was determined that the facility failed to store food and monitor temperatures in a manner that maintains professional standards of food service safety. This practice had the potential to affect all residents eating food prepared in the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the facility's and vendor's pest control logs and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. This was evident for 3 of 8 nursing units (1P, 3P and 3S) and the kitchen during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to obtain consent from the Resident's representative prior to administering a new medication to a resident (Resident # 33). This was evident for 1 of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the physician of the inability to obtain an opthamology consult. This was evident for 1 (#7) residents reviewed for 40 complaints reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a facility reported incident with documentation, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to protect a vulnerable adult from physical abuse. This was evident for 1 (#34) resident reviewed for 27 facility reported incidents reviewed during a complaint survey. The facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures following this incident prior to the start of this survey. The facility's plan and action were verified during this survey; therefore this deficiency was found to be past noncompliance with a compliance date of 10/16/23.
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 4 (#30, #24, #15, #29) of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure that a baseline care plan was provided to the resident and resident representative within 48 hours of admission to the facility (Resident #33 and #65). This was evident for 2 of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview it was determined that facility staff failed to develop and a comprehensive, resident centered care plans for altered skin integrity. This was evident for 1 (#30) of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 3 (#5, #38, #14) of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to provide treatment/services to prevent/heal pressures ulcers (Resident #55). This is evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, facility policy review and interview, the facility staff failed to obtain weekly weights on admission and failed to recognize a weight loss for a resident (Resident #33). This was evident for 1 of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of a complaint, medical record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide timely medication to meet the needs of the residents. This was evident for 1 (#14) resident reviewed for 40 complaints reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interview, and documentation review it was determined that facility staff failed to keep medication carts locked when unattended and date medications when opened. This was evident on 3 of 7 nursing units observed during random observations made during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to obtain laboratory services for a resident as ordered (Resident #33). This was evident for 1 of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to obtain outside services for residents in a timely manner. This was evident for 2 (#5, #7) of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards (Resident #20). This was evident for 1 of 71 residents reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on complaint review, observation, and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to implement an effective infection control program by failing to follow infection control guidlines during the handling and storage of linens and other patient care items. This was evident for 2 of 7 units observed during random observations made while touring the facility during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to accurately code the resident's status on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (Resident #176, #242, #288, #310, #298, #381 and #290). This was evident for 7 out of 89 residents selected for review during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review it was determined that the facility staff failed to initiate care plans for Residents #381, #279 and #685. This was evident for 3 of 89 residents selected for review during the annual survey.
Inspectors wrote3. The facility staff failed to notify the physician or certified registered nurse practitioner (CRNP) of elevated blood pressures as ordered by the physician. Medical record review for Resident #6 on 5/4/22 at 9:30 AM revealed on 1/26/21 the physician ordered: blood pressure 2 times a day, notify the physician or CRNP for systolic blood pressure (top number) above 170. Medical record review revealed the following documented blood pressures: 4/2/22 (Monday) at 2:52 PM 178/72; 3/26/22 at 8:07 AM 184/74; 3/10/22 at 8:55 AM 180/72; 1/29/22 at 8:32 AM 191/65, 1/21/22 (Friday) at 10:20 AM 183/73; 1/8/22 at 9:00 AM 202/79; 12/8/21 (Wednesday) at 9:25 AM 183/66; however, the facility staff failed to notify the physician or CRNP of the blood pressures as ordered. The resident is in dialysis on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews with residents and facility staff, the facility failed to serve residents food which was palatable and did not serve food at the preferred temperature. This was evident for 3 of 89 residents (Residents #132, #158 and #316) selected for review during the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, staff interview, and a review of community meeting minutes it was determined that the facility staff failed to act promptly upon the request of the residents regarding how meals are served. This was evident for one out of the six months reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to prevent verbal abuse from a Certified Medication Aid (#4) to Resident #279. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents selected for review of abuse during the survey process and 1 of 89 residents selected for review during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, it was determined the facility staff failed to honor the personal preferences interventions on the care plan for Resident #383. This was evident for 1 of 89 residents selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical review, it was determined the facility staff failed to prevent Resident #279 from receiving unnecessary medication. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents selected for review of unnecessary medications and 1 of 89 residents selected for review during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, the facility staff failed to obtain dental services for residents (Resident #242 and #288). This was evident for 2 out of 7 residents reviewed for dental services during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide a meal to Resident #132 within the limited 14-hour time frame. This was evident for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for food during the survey process and 1 of 89 selected for review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview the facility staff failed to provide specialized rehabilitation services as ordered by the physician (Residents #316). This was evident for 1 out of 5 residents reviewed for rehabilitation services during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, and observations it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain the medical record for Resident #132 in the most accurate and complete form. This was evident for 1 of 89 residents selected for review during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined the facility staff failed to administer the Influenza vaccine to Resident #337 per the request of the responsible party (RP). This was evident for 1 of 89 residents selected for review during the survey process.
17 fire safety citations on file: 17 on May 11, 2022.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.15 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.74 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.72 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.45 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.95 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.9% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 38.0% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.96 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 4.32 on weekdays and 3.72 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 15.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.01 in April to June 2025 to 4.15 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 | 4.15 | 0.74 | 4.32 | 3.72 | 15.7% | 0 of 90 | 340 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.18 | 0.74 | 4.34 | 3.79 | 15.8% | 0 of 92 | 343 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.14 | 0.72 | 4.32 | 3.70 | 19.5% | 0 of 92 | 347 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.01 | 0.74 | 4.18 | 3.59 | 20.2% | 0 of 91 | 350 |
| 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 | 23.6 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 26.2 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.3 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.5 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.6 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.4 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 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 Stella Maris, Inc.'s Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (61.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
61.6% 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. 1,222 eligible stays.
14.3% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Maryland: 0 better, 41 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 1,314 eligible stays.
4.7% this home
Better than 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. 783 eligible stays.
47.5% 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. 556 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. 756 residents counted.
6.0% 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. 755 residents counted.
96.9% 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. 318 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: STELLA MARIS INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mercy Health Services Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 07/01/1997 |
| Hickey, Crystal | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2020 | |
| Stone, Lisa | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2019 | |
| Stinnette, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2007 | |
| Stone, Lisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/08/2019 | |
| Desai, Chintan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/25/2025 | |
| Stone, Lisa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/08/2019 |
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.