1010 East 33rd Street, Baltimore, MD 21218 · Baltimore City County · (410) 554-9890
49 certified beds, about 51 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2012
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 215356 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 23, 2025, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Maryland average is 17, the national average 9.2).
Of 66 health citations since March 2019, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.61 hours per resident per day, against 3.87 across Maryland and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.34 of those hours.
51.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Maryland average 40.2%).
CMS links it to Lifeworks Rehab, an affiliated group of 64 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 66 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure there was a Registered Nurse working at least 8 hours a day. This was evident in 3 out of 14 days reviewed during the Staffing task in the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on resident interview, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a functional and comfortable environment. This was evident on 4 out of 4 units reviewed for environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record reviews, and observations, it was determined that the facility failed to promote and maintain resident dignity by failing to answer residents' call lights promptly to address residents basic care needs. This was evident for 4 (Resident #17, #2, #60 and #22) out of 8 residents reviewed for dignity during the recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment. This was evident in 4 out of 4 units observed for environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to administer medications in accordance with professional standards. This was evident for 5 (Resident #46, #2, #60, #59 and #64) out of 5 residents reviewed for medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to supervise a resident (#49) to prevent them from hazards. This was evident for 1 out 3 residents reviewed for accidents and supervision.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to update the resident's care plan after the resident had a change in condition. This was evident in 1 of 3 residents (Resident #3) reviewed during a complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure adequate nursing staff coverage as required and failed to ensure that call bells were answered in a timely manner. This deficient practice was evident for all four nursing units during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the facility's assessment accurately reflected the facility's staffing requirements. This deficient practice was evident during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of complaint #2611976, record reviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's clinical record was accurately documented regarding the date and acquisition of pressure injuries. This was evident for 1 out of 2 complaints reviewed during the complaint survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to perform bed rail assessments and obtain resident consent for bedrails. This was evident for 4 (Resident #17, # 21, #68, and #64) out of 5 residents reviewed for bedrails during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain proper infection control procedures and failed to store and prepare food in a manner that maintains professional standards of food service safety. This practice was evident for 2 of 4 kitchens that prepare food for residents within the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a system was in place to timely respond to the needs of a resident (Resident #21) reviewed for accommodation of needs during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on administrative record review and interviews with the residents, family and facility staff, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide an environment that promotes dignity and respect for residents who require assistance with their daily care. This was found to be evident for 1(Resident #49) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse allegations during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interviews with facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a resident and /or the resident representative (RP) received notice in a timely manner regarding notification and explanation of their rights pending discharge from Medicare. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident # 67) of 4 residents reviewed regarding liability notices during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain documentation related to an allegation of abuse. This was evident for 2 of 6 facility reports reviewed during the annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's person-centered care plan was reviewed and revised to reflect the resident's current code status. This was evident for 1 (Resident #68) out of 2 residents reviewed for care planning during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews with residents and staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a physician's order for tube feeding was accurately followed (Resident #12) who was reviewed for tube feeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of medical records, interviews with residents, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that facility staff failed to document administration of as needed (PRN) pain medications in a resident's medication administration record. This was evident for 1 (Resident #66) of two residents reviewed for pain management during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on reviews of medical records, interviews with residents, and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that facility staff failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records in accordance with acceptable professional standards. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #66) reviewed for pain management and 1 of out of 4 residents (Resident #68) reviewed for accidents during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff donned appropriate personal protective equipment for enhanced barrier precautions and failed to ensure a resident's order for enhanced barrier precautions was maintained and followed. This was evident for 2 (Resident #21 and #32) out of 14 residents reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observations, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address and implement interventions for a resident admitted with a suprapubic catheter. This was identified during the review of 1 of 1 residents with suprapubic catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and staff interviewed it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the resident, and/or their responsible party, received written notification of a transfer to the hospital, including appeal rights and ombudsman contact information (Residents #19, #201 and #202). This was found to be evident for 3 out of 6 residents reviewed for hospitalization during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with resident and facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to 1. appropriately code a residents suprapubic catheter on the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS). This was evident during the review of 1 of 1 residents identified as having suprapubic catheters (Resident #20). 2. accurately code significant weight loss (Resident #7), 3. accurately code the use of oxygen (Resident #35) and 4. accurately code the use of antibiotics (Resident #28). This was evident for 4 out of 50 residents reviewed during an annual survey. The MDS is a federally mandated assessment tool used by nursing home staff to gather 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 medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility staff completed MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessments without the proper qualifications (Residents #7, #17, #31, #37, #53, #201, #202). This was evident for 7 of 50 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to develop and/or implement a resident's interdisciplinary care plan (Residents #29, #37, #201). This was evident for 3 of 50 residents reviewed during an annual survey. A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, staff interview, and resident interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure care plan meetings were held. This was evident for 4 (#28, #29, #37, #202) out of 50 residents that were part of the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview, the facility staff failed to provide treatment/services to prevent/heal pressures ulcers (Resident #7, #46 and #201). This is evident for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during an annual survey. A pressure ulcer also known as pressure sore or decubitus ulcer is any lesion caused by unrelieved pressure that results in damage to the underlying tissue. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and staff interview, the facility staff failed to provide supervision to prevent an accident (Resident #201, #29) and failed to ensure a resident room was safe (Resident #151). This was evident for 3 out of 50 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to failed to obtain weights on Resident #37 as recommended by the dietitian and facility staff failed to thoroughly monitor and add interventions timely when the facility staff documented a significant weight loss for a resident Resident #7. This was evident for 2 of 5 residents selected for review for nutrition during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, resident interviews, and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a comprehensive psychiatric evaluation and consultation for (#3), 6 months out of 12 possible months in 2022. This was evident in 1 out of 50 residents sampled as part of this survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the tour of the four kitchens, observation, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure food is stored and prepared in a properly maintained kitchen. This was evident for 4 out of the 4 kitchens.
Inspectors wroteBased upon interview and record review, the facility failed to 1. failed to follow the recommendations of a consultant (Resident #40) 2. ensure timely consult reports from the use of outside resources (Resident #17) 3. failed to ensure urology consults were obtained and recommendations followed (Resident #20), 4. failed to follow up and implement interventions for a resident with an identified impaired nutritional status (Resident #7). This was evident for 4 out of 12 residents with outside consults during the annual 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 Residents (#17, #19, #24, #54 and #201). This was evident for 5 of 50 residents selected for medical record review during the annual survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on a revisit of previous annual surveys and deficient practices identified during this survey, it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective Quality Assurance Program as evidenced by the identification of 7 repeat deficiencies. The failure to identify and develop appropriate plans of correction to correct quality deficiencies places all residents at risk.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of the residents and facility, and a review of the facility pest control records, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain an effective pest control program, specifically concerning fly control (Resident #7), 2nd 3rd, and 4th floors of the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased upon observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #40 had laundered personal clothing available to wear in accordance with this resident's wishes in order to maintain the resident's dignity. On 01/05/2023 at 08:00 AM, Resident #40 was observed dressed in a hospital gown in the hallway, verbalizing that they had no clothes to wear. Staff #26: GNA (geriatric nursing assistant) #4, was seen in the hall by the laundry room and acknowledged the resident's clothes were in the laundry and not ready. On 01/05/2023 at 09:35 AM, the resident was observed by surveyors sitting in a chair in the community area dressed in the hospital gown and pants verbalizing that his/her own clothes were preferred but were not laundered yet. On 01/10/2023 at 08:30 AM, Resident #40 was observed sitting in a chair in the community area with an upset facial expression. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on an initial observation prior to and of dining the facility failed to provide the residents with and environment that included comfortable sound levels with appropriate entertainment. This was evident during the first observation of dining occurring on the 4th floor.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of the medical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide the resident and their representative with written notice of bed hold policy, at the time of the resident's transfer for hospitalization. This was evident for 2 (Residents #19 and #48) of 6 residents reviewed for hospitalization during an annual recertification survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on the medical record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the standard of practice during medication administration for the care of the resident (Resident # 55). This was evident for 1 of 50 residents selected for review during the annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide grooming and personal hygiene services for a resident (Resident #204). This was evident for 1 out of 50 residents reviewed during an annual survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, resident interview, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's bed had a complete pair of siderails. This was evident for 1 out of the 50 residents selected for the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the physician progress notes did not contain or address pertinent issues that were relevant at the time the notes were completed. This was evident during the review of 1 of 26 resident physician notes. (#7)
Inspectors wroteBased on the review of employee files and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have competency skills list provided and available for Geriatric Nursing Assistance (GNA) upon hire. This was evident for 2 of 4 GNA employee files reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were destroyed after a resident expired or the medications were discontinued; and secure a medication storage room and properly label resident medication. This was found to be evident during observation of two of four medication storage rooms.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's medication regimen was reviewed monthly (#19). This was true for 1 out of 50 residents that were part of the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on random observations it was determined that the facility failed on multiple occasions to ensure that the code cart and the medication carts were secure. This was observed on different occasions and locations.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observation, resident interview, and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure a resident was screened for dental services (#28). This was evident for 1 out of 50 residents reviewed as part of the survey sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow infection control practices and guidelines by failing to maintain a sanitary environment to prevent the development and transmission of disease-causing organisms from exposed foam and underneath padding due to torn and cracked vinyl on stools.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to implement an Infection Prevention Control Program (IPCP) to provide appropriate infection surveillance, an effective antibiotic stewardship program for residents, and review the IPCP annually . This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents, staff, and visitors in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of pertinent documentation and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have an active antibiotic stewardship program in place for the past year. This was evident after the attempted review of the facility's antibiotic stewardship program. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with the facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to: 1.) provide notice to residents informing them that Medicare may deny payments for procedures or treatments and that residents may be personally responsible for full payment, and 2.) provide notification to residents that their Medicare coverage was ending within the required time frame. This was evident in 3 of 3, residents (Resident #247, #248 and #21) reviewed during beneficiary protection notification.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of medical records and other pertinent documentation as well as staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure resident safety while an investigation was in process and failed to complete thorough investigations as evidenced by allowing an accused employee to work with residents prior to the completion of the investigation and failure to interview potential witnesses. This was found to be evident for 3 out of 4 residents (Resident #96, #297 and #146) reviewed for abuse during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff it was determined that the facility failed to accurately code a resident on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) regarding antipsychotic and anxiolytic usage. This was evident in the review of 2 of 6 residents (Resident #42 and #31) reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the medical record and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to provide a summary of the Baseline Plan of Care to the resident or responsible party. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 6 residents (Resident #39) reviewed for care planning in the investigative section of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, observation, and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the development and implementation of comprehensive care plans as evidenced by: 1.) failure to update care plan to reflect that restorative services were on hold, 2.) failure to establish a care plan for restorative nursing services, 3.) failure to include safety measures in regard to dining precautions, 4.) failure to develop an individualized care plan related to a residents diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF), and 5.) failure to follow the resident care plan by ensuring that regularly scheduled medications were available to administer to the resident. This was found to be evident for 5 of 23 residents (Resident #28, #9, #25, #31, and #23) investigated during the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure restorative nursing services were provided as ordered. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 3 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review, interview and observation it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident received 1:1 supervision during meals as ordered by the physician, and failed to implement the speech therapist recommendation of no straws for a resident with a swallowing dysfunction. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 1 resident (Resident #25) reviewed for potential accidents. The facility also failed to ensure pureed food was of a smooth pudding like consistency. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 1 pureed test tray obtained during the survey but has the potential to affect any resident receiving a pureed diet.
Inspectors wroteBased on administrative record review and interviews with the resident and facility staff it was determined the facility failed to have enough staff to: 1.) ensure that a resident's regularly scheduled medication was available as ordered as to prevent missing doses at the time of administration, and 2.) provide physician ordered meal supervision. This was found to be evident for 2 of 23 residents (Resident #23 and #25) reviewed during the facility's annual Medicare/Medicaid survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure both nurses and geriatric nursing assistants (GNA) demonstrated skills competency prior to working independently with residents. This was found to be evident for 2 out of 3 recently hired GNA's (GNA #10 and #11) and 2 out of 2 recently hired nurses (Nurse #12 and #13).
Inspectors wroteBased on review of employee files and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to have an effective system in place to ensure geriatric nursing assistants (GNA) were currently certified. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 4 GNA's (GNA #20) files reviewed for GNA's that had worked at the facility for more than one year.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the staff failed to have a system in place to ensure that the pharmacist recommendations were reviewed/addressed by the physicians in a timely manner and failed to ensure that a prn (as needed) order for an anti-psychotic medication was limited to 14 days and then obtain a new order for the medication only after evaluation from the physician. This was evident for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for unnecessary medications in the investigative stage of the survey process.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to administer medication according to physician orders. This was evident during the review of 1 of 6 unnecessary medications (Resident #21).
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a PRN (as needed) order for an anti-psychotic medication was limited to 14 days and then obtain a new order for the medication only after evaluation from the physician. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 7 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for unnecessary medications during the investigative stage of the survey.
Inspectors wroteBased on review and observation of medical records, Controlled Drug Count Verification sheets, observation of the medication room refrigerators, and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the temperature on the medication refrigerator was documented daily. This was found to be evident for 3 out of the 3 nursing medication room refrigerators.
Inspectors wroteBased on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were offered the flu vaccine annually. This was found to be evident for one out of five residents (Resident #3) reviewed for immunizations during survey.
48 fire safety citations on file: 4 on March 11, 2026, 6 on July 23, 2025, 31 on January 23, 2023, 7 on March 11, 2019.
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) | 3.61 | 3.87 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.34 | 0.84 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.08 | 3.47 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.23 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.05 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.0% | 40.2% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 42.9% | 38.7% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.27 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 3.84 on weekdays and 3.08 on weekends, 20% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.14 in April to June 2025 to 3.61 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 | 3.61 | 0.34 | 3.84 | 3.08 | 1.5% | 0 of 90 | 51 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.74 | 0.41 | 3.90 | 3.34 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 45 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.92 | 0.55 | 4.10 | 3.48 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 43 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.14 | 0.61 | 4.37 | 3.57 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 45 |
| 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 | 29.1 | 20.4 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 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 | 4.1 | 2.4 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.8 | 22.2 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 5.9 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 13.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.9 | 21.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.8 | 9.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Nursing and Rehab Center at Stadium Place's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (60.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
60.0% 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. 204 eligible stays.
13.2% 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. 208 eligible stays.
6.5% 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. 134 eligible stays.
68.2% 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. 110 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. 180 residents counted.
1.9% 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. 180 residents counted.
97.3% 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. 112 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: GREEN HOUSE RESIDENCE CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC. CMS links this home to Lifeworks Rehab, a group of 64 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birnbaum, Israel | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 24% | 07/07/2021 |
| Halpern, Michael | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 07/01/2015 |
| Netzer, Laurie | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 24% | 07/07/2021 |
| Scheiner, Moshe | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 07/01/2015 |
| Birnbaum, Israel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/07/2021 |
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.