1123 Belcamp Garth, Belcamp, MD 21017 · Harford County · (410) 575-6400
129 certified beds, about 109 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215233 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 25, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
None of its 41 health citations since December 2018 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $4,194 in the last three years; the largest was $4,194, and the latest is dated December 11, 2023.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.78 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.69 of those hours.
53.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Sterling Care, an affiliated group of 6 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure sanitary practices were followed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, and ensure the dishwasher reached adequate temperature according to the manufacturer's guideline. This was evident during the surveyor's tour of the facility's kitchen and 1 out of 1 nutrition room observed by the surveyor on the first floor of the facility during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, medical record reviews, and observations it was determined that the facility failed to provide dignity and respect to residents dependent for activities of daily living assistance. This was evident for two residents (#7 and #43) out of 8 residents observed at mealtimes during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment and maintain the resident environment in a safe, clean, and homelike manner. This was evident for 1 out of 1 outdoor resident patio spaces and 5 of 15 resident rooms observed during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded. This was evident for 1 (Resident #10) out of 5 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were timely administered to a resident (#68). This was evident during the surveyor's review of a complaint during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all residents were free from accident hazards and supervision. This was evident for 4 (Resident #2, 4, 73, and 22) out of 4 residents observed in the dining room area after breakfast time during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review it was determined the facility failed to: 1.) follow an active medical order in place for continuous oxygen for a resident, 2.) ensure the resident's care reviewed by the physician reflected the medical order in place, and 3.) ensure the respiratory care plan accurately reflected the medical order for oxygen. This was evident for 1 out of 1 resident (Resident #68) reviewed for respiratory care during the surveyor's review of a complaint and during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the services of a registered nurse were provided for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. This deficient practice was evident on 1 of 8 days reviewed (08/10/2025) during the recertification survey. On 08/15/2025 at 1:07 PM, record review of staffing schedules and assignments revealed that no registered nurse was scheduled or present to provide coverage for the facility on 08/10/2025 for an 8-hour consecutive period. At 1:26 PM, during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she confirmed there was no nurse coverage for the entire building during the overnight shift on August 9 and all day on August 10. She stated she lives close by and could come in if needed but was not in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to post nurse staffing information in a clear and visible manner as required. This deficient practice was evident for 1 of 2 floors during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all items in the medication storage rooms were free from expired expiration dates. This was evident for 1 out of 2 medication storage rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure accurate information was placed in residents' records. This was evident for 2 (Resident #2 and #132) residents reviewed during the survey. 1) On 8/21/2025 at 2:13 PM, the surveyor spoke with the DON #2 and asked the question, Who is responsible for reviewing and implementing orders from the doctor after a doctor's appointment? DON #2 explained that the nurse should review the visit summary and update the orders when the resident returns, and the unit manager should also follow up to make sure that the orders are completed. DON #2 was notified that during the surveyor's record review, for Resident #2, there was no documentation of when the Foley was ever changed. DON #2 stated that she is not sure how they document it and that she would get back to the surveyor. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews the facility failed to: 1.) maintain optimal infection control and prevention precautions in one area of the laundry room and maintain a clean environment around the eye wash station and the laundry hopper, and ensure water pipes were not left exposed in the area next to and above the laundry hopper. This was evident for 1 out of 1 laundry area observed; 2.) ensure proper infection control/sanitization for any medical equipment that was shared among residents. This was evident for 1 out of 2 medication administration observations; and 3.) ensure oxygen equipment was properly dated to prevent potential infection control risks. This was evident for 1 (Resident #101) of 2 residents reviewed for oxygen use during the facility's recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on a tour of the facility it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure resident rooms were maintained in a homelike manner. This was evident as a result of random observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and medical record review it was determined that the facility failed to 1.) provide a resident with prompt assistance for positioning and failed to ensure the resident had access to their call bell device (Resident #504) and 2.) failed to document complete assessments of residents when there was a noted change in condition (#305 and #506). This was evident for 1.) 1 of 2 residents reviewed for positioning, and 2.) 2 of 4 residents reviewed for change of condition during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to maintain the medical record in the most complete and accurate form for Residents (#5, #16, #24, #48, #61, #154, #156 and #508). This was evident for 8 of 63 residents selected for medical record review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and medical record review it was determined the facility failed to maintain the safest practicable level of precautions to prevent and control the spread of infectious disease. This was evident during multiple random observations throughout the facility. Review of the CDC website for Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Spread in Nursing Homes, updated 9/27/22, revealed the following guidance; Post visual alerts (e.g., signs, posters) at the entrance and in strategic places (e.g., waiting areas, elevators, cafeterias) These alerts should include instructions about current IPC recommendations (e.g., when to use source control and perform hand hygiene). Dating these alerts can help ensure people know that they reflect current recommendations. Implement source control measures by; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of medical records, interview with facility staff and review of pertinent documentation including facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to implement and monitor the usage of antibiotics for the residents. This was identified during the review of the facility line listing during the annual Medicaid/Medicare survey and the infection control task. Random residents selected for review from the facility line listing included (R #80, #106 and #504)
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to consistently acquire resident vital signs timely for the Daily COVID-19 tool assessments. This was evident for 3 of 3 residents reviewed during the infection control part of the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure residents were offered the opportunity to either provide a copy of already written Advanced Directives and/or create a set of Advanced Directives (#28 and #506). This was evident for 2 out of the 63 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to notify family and the physician timely when notified of a residents change in condition. This was evident during a random observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation while touring the facility it was determined that the facility staff failed to protect the privacy of its residents (#9). This was evident as a result of three random observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to accurately code a resident's status on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (Resident #50, #73 and #80). This was evident for 3 out of 63 residents selected for review during an annual survey. The MDS is a federally-mandated assessment tool that helps nursing home staff gathers information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. MDS assessments need to be accurate to ensure each resident receives the care they need.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure its residents had a complete and accurate Preadmission Screening and Record Review (PASRR). This was evident for 1 out of 63 residents in the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and medical record review it was determined the facility failed to address presence and care of a resident's foley catheter (tube that drains urine from the bladder) in the resident's baseline careplan. This was evident for one out of three residents reviewed for catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident medical records, the facility failed to take a resident to the bathroom (Resident #458), change a resident in a timely manner (Resident # 27) and provide showers (Resident #508). This was evident for 3 out of 7 residents reviewed for ADL care during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide supplements as recommended by the dietitian for a resident (#64). This was evident for 1 of 4 residents selected for review for nutrition during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to include provider notes in the medical record in a timely manner with accurate date of visit (Resident #508). This was evident for 1 of 63 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to address and identify the use of a medication in a resident's plan of care (Resident #508). This was evident for one out of three residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations of the facility's kitchen and interviews of the dietary staff it was determined that 1) the facility failed to ensure sanitary practices were followed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety and 2) ensure the food maintained an acceptable serving temperature. These deficient practices have the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation it was determined the facility staff failed to properly label and date food stored in the walk-in refrigerator. This was evident during the initial tour of the kitchen during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to treat each resident in a dignified manner for. This was evident for 8 of 40 residents (#13, #55, #39, #87, #12, #73, #100, and #63) reviewed during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of a medical record, and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to 1) obtain a physician's order to use a restraint on a resident, 2) evaluate the use of a restraint on a resident, and 3) initiate a care plan for the use of the restraint on a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #55) of 1 resident reviewed for physical restraints during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure that dependent resident's personal hygiene needs were adequately met by trimming the resident's finger nails. This was evident for 2 (#13, #96) of 6 residents reviewed for ADL care during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility staff failed to apply ace bandage wraps for Resident #89 and Ted stockings for Resident #351. This was evident for 2 of 40 residents during the investigative portion of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that residents with a limited range of motion received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent further decline in range of motion. This was evident for 1 (Resident #13) of 4 residents reviewed for mobility during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to perform an annual performance review for a geriatric nursing assistant (GNA, Staff #5).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, staff interviews and review of facility daily narcotic and amphetamine count per shift records, it was determined that the facility failed to accurately complete the narcotic and amphetamine count per shift records. This was evident for 2 of 4 medication storage carts reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain dental services for a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #36) of 5 residents reviewed for dental services during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, medical record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain dental services for a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #55) of 5 residents reviewed for dental services during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide safe and sanitary conditions to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. This was evident during observation of an Indwelling Foley Cather for Resident #99. This was evident for 1 of 2 resident's selected for review of Indwelling Foley Cather.
Inspectors wroteBased on daily observation during the annual recertification survey it was determined the facility failed to post the required nursing staffing data on the nursing assignment board. This was evident on 2 out of 2 nursing assignment boards
29 fire safety citations on file: 11 on August 25, 2025, 16 on April 6, 2023, 2 on December 21, 2018.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| December 11, 2023 | Fine | $4,194 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Maryland | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.78 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.69 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.14 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.03 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.06 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 53.2% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 41.2% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.75 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 4.03 on weekdays and 3.14 on weekends, 22% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.71 in April to June 2025 to 3.78 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 | 3.78 | 0.69 | 4.03 | 3.14 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 109 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.67 | 0.63 | 3.90 | 3.11 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 107 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.94 | 0.57 | 4.20 | 3.28 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.71 | 0.59 | 4.03 | 2.91 | 3.1% | 0 of 91 | 108 |
| 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.
| 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 | 16.4 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.1 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.0 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.2 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Sterling Care Riverside's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (59.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.1% 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. 545 eligible stays.
13.7% 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. 522 eligible stays.
8.1% 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. 316 eligible stays.
65.3% 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. 141 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. 222 residents counted.
1.0% 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. 222 residents counted.
93.9% 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. 147 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: RIVERSIDE SNF OPERATOR, LLC. CMS links this home to Sterling Care, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 4.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ro Holdings, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2019 |
| Jakobovits, Nathan | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/01/2019 | |
| Kagan, Jeffrey | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/01/2019 |
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.