Future Care Chesapeake
305 College Parkway, Arnold, MD 21012 · For profit - Corporation · 152 certified beds · (410) 647-0015 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.6% | 20.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.7% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 11.7% | 22.8% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.2% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.9% | 22.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.5% | 16.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 5.9% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.5% | 25.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.5% | 13.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.1% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.9% | 80.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.2% | 21.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.1% | 9.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.07 | 1.33 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.54 | 1.20 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
62.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 718 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 70.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 292 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.53 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 83% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 32% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 62.9%CMS range 59.3–67.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.3%CMS range 12.5–16.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 70.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 61.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 57.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.1% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 98.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.1%CMS range 5.8–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 152 beds and averages 141.5 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.08 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.26 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.12 to 0.71 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-04 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on administrative reviews and interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff members complete skills-based competency training annually. This was evident for 1 of 4 GNAs personnel files reviewed (GNA #15) and 1 out of 1 RN (RN #13) during the investigation phase of a recertification survey. The findings include:On 02/04/2026 at 10:00 AM the surveyor initiated the employee record review of nursing personnel which revealed: GNA #15 was hired on 01/28/2014. Additionally, the employee's personnel file did provide evidence of annual clinical skills competency training documentation between 2015 and 2024.RN #13 did not have annual clinical skills training documentation present in the employee file for years 2023 and 2024. RN #13 was hired on 06/22/2022.On 02/04/2025 at 10:25 AM the surveyor was provided with a copy of performance evaluation policy by the facility. The policy stated: Each employee will have an annual performance evaluation that reviews performance based on expectation identified in the job description. The immediate supervisor is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-04 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of Geriatric Nursing Assistants' (GNAs)personnel files and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that annual performance evaluations were completed at least every twelve months. This was evident for 2 (GNA #15, GNA #9) out of 4 GNA personnel files reviewed during a recertification survey.The findings include: The annual performance evaluation identifies what clinical competency skills the geriatric employee should improve or maintain based on the annual 12-hour competency skills training required for geriatric nursing assistants.A review of the personnel files of four GNA employees was conducted between 10:00 AM and 12 noon on 02/04/2026. GNA #15's personnel record revealed there were no annual performance evaluations found between the years of 2016 through 2026. GNA #15 was hired on 01/28/2014 per the facility personnel file. GNA #9 did not have an annual performance evaluation present for years 2024 or 2025 and was hired on 07/26/2023. At 12 noon on 02/04/2026 the surveyor reviewed the personnel file findings with the Director of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain the food service area in a sanitary manner and failed to properly store and label food items. This deficient practice was evident for the kitchen area observed during the recertification survey.The findings include: 1. On 01/29/26 at 7:28 AM, during observation of the main kitchen, the following sanitary concerns were identified:A box containing cans of ginger ale and tomato juice was stored directly on the floor in close proximity to the hand sink floor drain.A spice rack contained an open container of dill weed, approximately two-thirds full, which was undated.Debris was observed in the floor drain located beneath the dishwasher.A pair of used plastic foodservice gloves was observed on the floor near the dishwasher.Multiple broken floor tiles were noted near the dishwasher, with standing gray water present within the crevices.Brown, dried stains were observed on the wall adjacent to the handwashing sink. 2. At 7:31 AM, observation of a freestanding refrigerator unit located…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-04 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that accurately documented the resident current medical diagnosis. This was evident for 1 (resident #3) out of 9 residents reviewed during the recertification survey.The findings include: Review of resident #3 medical record on 02/03/2026 at 09:19 AM revealed a Care Plan Problem dated 12/15/2025 stating that the resident has potential safety risk r/t seizure disorder as evidenced by medication management, a current medication order dated 12/02/2025 for Lamotrigine Oral Tablet 200mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Seizure and a psychiatric note dated 01/29/2026 stating resident is taking medication Lamotrigine for a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder. Further review revealed a Diagnosis Report listing all resident #3 diagnoses which did not list a diagnosis of having a seizure disorder. During an interview on 02/03/2026 at approximately 10:00 AM staff member #8 stated and agreed, There is no…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-09-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that medications were secured and stored safely. This was found to be evident for 5 out of 7 observations for medication storage during the recertification survey. The findings include: Insulin is a hormone that helps regulate blood sugar levels by moving glucose from the bloodstream into cells for energy. Insulin therapy often is an important part of diabetes treatment. It helps keep blood sugar under control and prevents diabetes complications. It works like the hormone insulin that the body usually makes. 1) During a medication observation conducted on 09/05/24 at 8:00 AM, this Surveyor inspected Registered Nurse (RN) #4's medication cart. The Surveyor discovered an unopened Lispro Kwikpen 100/u/ml insulin pen for Resident #63. The insulin pen was dated 08/30/24 and stored in a plastic bag that had a pharmacy label on it that said refrigerate until open. Following the observation, an interview was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-20 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that all allegations of abuse were reported to the state agency (SA) within the required reporting timeframe. This was evident for 3 (#100, #69, and #2 ) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: 1) Review on 9/18/24 at 12:06 PM of the facility's investigation filed for the facility reported incident #MD00198616 revealed Resident #100 reported an allegation of abuse to facility staff. According to the statement written by the Social Worker the report of abuse was made on 10/6/23 at 12:15 PM. On 9/19/24 at 9:41 AM a review of the facility email confirmation, sent by the Director of Nursing (DON), revealed that the report had not been sent to the SA until 10/6/23 at 3:14 PM, which was beyond the 2-hour timeframe. An interview with the DON on 9/19/24 at 12:14 PM revealed that the facility had not developed a process to ensure timely submission of allegations of abuse related to the information requested on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a Resident's care plan was revised in a timely manner. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident # 113) out of 1 Resident reviewed for care plan revisions. The findings include: During a review of Resident #113's medical records conducted on 09/16/24 at 9:51 AM, it was discovered that the resident fell on [DATE], 07/28/23 & 07/31/23. A care plan is a document that outlines the actions and interventions needed to address a person's health or care needs. It can include information about a patient's health conditions, medications, and healthcare providers. Care plans can help ensure that patients receive consistent care. A review of Resident #113's care plan conducted on 09/16/24 at 10:00 AM, revealed the care plan for falls had not been revised to include the resident's falls on 07/14/23, 07/28/23 & 07/31/23. During an interview conducted on 09/16/24 at 12:19 PM, the Regional Clinical Services Manager stated that after she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-20 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and staff interview it was determined that facility staff failed to provide ADLs (activities of daily living such as, showers, dressing, and toileting) for a resident who was dependent on them for this care. This was evidence for 1 (101) of 2 residents reviewed for ADL care. The findings include: Hospice care focuses on the care, comfort, and quality of life of a person with a serious illness who is approaching the end of life. www.nia.nih.gov. During a review of complaint #MD00166118 for Resident #101 it was revealed there were concerns regarding the resident's care needs being provided. On 9/18/24 at 9:54 AM a medical record review for Resident #101 revealed a discharge summary from the hospital that noted the resident was on hospice care when s/he fell and broke his/her arm. The family decided to stop hospice care and send the resident to the facility for therapy. An attending physician note dated 2/7/24 noted the resident had advanced dementia (a general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident's safety. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #36) out of 1 resident's reviewed for quality of care during the re-certification survey. The findings include: During an interview conducted on 09/11/24 at 10:33 AM, Resident #36 stated that on 09/07/24 Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #8 attempted to assist the resident in the transfer from the bed to the electric wheelchair. The resident stated that the GNA assisted him/her from a lying position to a sitting position to the side of the bed. The resident stated that he/she advised the GNA that the back of his/her legs were not flush against the mattress which was required for a safe transfer from the bed to the wheelchair when using the transfer board. The resident further stated that the GNA went behind the bed from where the resident sat and attempted to pull the resident by his/her pants closer to the mattress. As a result, the resident slid off the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of Residents' medical records. This was found to be evident for 3 (Resident # 18, #106, & 99) out of 46 Residents reviewed during the recertification survey. The findings include: 1) During a review of Resident #18's Medication Administration Record (MAR) conducted on 09/09/24 at 11:44 AM revealed an order for Boost VHC two times a day 60 ml (millimeters) PO (oral) with med pass. A continued review of the MAR revealed that the order for BOOST VHC had been documented that Resident #18 had received Boost at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM for the entire month of August of 2024 and from September 1, 2024, through September 8, 2024. During an interview conducted on 09/09/24 at 12:09 PM, Resident #18 and his/her assigned Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #5 stated that the Resident disliked Boost and refused it when offered. Both the Resident and the GNA stated that the Resident would only drink chocolate milk with med pas.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 11 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews and medical record review it was determined that the facility failed to follow appropriate infection prevention and control practices. This was found to be evident during the annual recertification survey. The findings include: During the initial tour of the laundry department on 9/9/2024 at 8:25 AM with the Housekeeping Floor Technician (#12) the surveyor observed an employee's personal backpack on the floor underneath the clean laundry folding table in the clean linen area of the laundry room. The surveyor conducted an interview on 9/9/2024 at 8:45 AM with the Housekeeping Floor Technician (#12) and the Laundry Aide (#13) who acknowledged that the employee's personal backpack was on the floor and that the expectation was that employee's personal items were not to be stored in the laundry room. Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) are a set of infection control measures that aim to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms. Enhanced Barrier Precautions refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-20 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview and facility record review it was determined that facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program. This was evident in the facility kitchen and in the facility conference room. The findings include: On the initial tour of the facility's kitchen on 9/3/24 at 8:57 AM with the Certified Food Service Manager (CFSM) the surveyor observed a fly that was flying around near the top shelf of the food storage rack in the dry storage room located in the kitchen. The surveyor interviewed the Certified Food Services Manager (CFSM) at 9:15 AM on 9/3/24 during the kitchen tour, and the CFSM acknowledged that there was a fly that was observed flying around near the top shelf of the food storage rack in the dry storage room. The Certified Food Services Manager (CFSM) stated to the surveyor that the Pest Control Company is scheduled for service and treatment every other week for the facility. At 7:20 AM on 9/18/24 the surveyors observed gnats flying around in the conference room. Additionally, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was observed by the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-22 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to offer twice weekly showers as scheduled or offer any showers. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #235) reviewed for choices in the investigative stage of the survey. The findings include: Review of complaint MD00143959 on 8/22/19 revealed that the resident had not been getting showers. During an interview with the resident on 8/22/19, the resident revealed that he/she liked to take showers, the resident further revealed that the warm showers are very relaxing. Review of the physician orders on 8/22/19 revealed that the resident's shower days were every Wednesday and Saturday during day shift. Further review of the medical records revealed that the resident has an extensive stomach wound. During an interview with the Wound Nurse #11, it was revealed that taking showers was not contraindicated. Review of the shower log from August 8-22, 2019 revealed the facility documented that the resident only received 1 shower on 8/19/19. Further review of the log failed to reveal any…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-22 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on complaint review, reviews of a closed medical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to immediately notify a resident's physician and resident's representative (RP) with a continued significant weight loss prior to discharging the resident home. This was evident for 1 of 42 residents (Resident #185) reviewed during the annual recertification survey. The findings include: Review of complaint MD00143384 on 08/19/19 revealed an allegation that Resident #185 suffered a steady weight loss during his/her stay in the facility. In an interview with the complainant on 08/19/19 9:07 AM, the complainant alleged that Resident #185 lost weight and the staff did not treat Resident #185 for the weight loss before discharging Resident #185 home. Review of Resident #185's closed medical record revealed Resident #185 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] after a fall in which Resident #185 suffered a fractured right leg and spine. Resident #185 required a neck brace and a leg splint…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-22 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility was unable to provide documentation that a Notification of Medicare Non Coverage (NOMNC) was mailed to a resident. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #236) reviewed for beneficiary protection notification. The findings include: The Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) letter is intended to notify a Medicare member, in writing, that the member's Medicare health plan and/or provider have decided to terminate the member's covered services, and, because of the termination of services, the member has appeal rights. Resident #236's medical records were reviewed on 8/22/19, this review revealed that the resident had a responsible party (RP) that received all the notifications from the facility. A reviewed the Resident #236's NOMNC letter revealed that on 7/8/19 the resident's benefits were ending. Further review revealed that the Social Worker #15 called the RP on 7/5/19 to inform him that the resident's service was ending. Review of Social Worker #15's documentation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to revise a comprehensive care plan for the use of a restraint. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #3) reviewed for restraints during the annual recertification survey. The findings include: 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. Review of Resident #3's medical record on 08/14/19 revealed that Resident #3 had a history of behavior problems that included screaming, crying, and pulling out the gastrostomy tube (g-tube). Nursing goals include to minimize the risk of having the g-tube dislodged. Nursing approaches included: the application of an abdominal binder but failed to show the interventions for checking the abdominal binder and skin observations every two hours. In an interview with the nursing Unit Manager #17 on 08/21/19 at 2:33 PM, the Unit Manager #17 indicated there was no documentation the nursing staff were removing and observing Resident #3's skin…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on complaint review, review of a closed medical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to have a discussion with a resident and their responsible party following a physician consult recommending further work-up for a bladder mass. This was evident for 1 of 42 residents (Resident #185) reviewed during the annual recertification survey. The findings include: Review of complaint MD00143384 on 08/19/19 revealed an allegation that Resident #185 suffered from vaginal bleeding and was subsequently diagnosed with a bladder mass. The complaint also alleged the facility staff failed to take steps to determine if the bladder mass was cancerous. Review of Resident #185's closed medical record on 08/14/19 revealed a Urologist consultant note, dated 06/07/19, that detailed a Urology assessment and a plan for Resident #185. Resident #185 was referred to the Urologist for abnormal bleeding and assessment of a bladder mass measuring 4.8 x 5.7 x 1.6 cm which was identified by sonogram…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-22 · tag F0730 — isolatedObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on reviews of administrative records, it was determined that the nursing administrative staff failed to ensure that all Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) staff completed a minimum of 12 hours of education per year. This was evident for 5 of 6 GNA records reviewed during the annual recertification survey. The findings include: On 08/19/19, a review of 6 random Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) staff members, educational records for 2018, revealed that GNA #2 failed to complete at a minimum of 12 hours of education for the year of 2018/2019. The facility Administrator was made aware of the findings on 08/22/2019 at 6 PM.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-22 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure that the resident took the medications being administered as evidenced by the observation of a medication container with red liquid inside it left on top of the resident table. This was found to be evident for 1 out of 5 residents (Resident #35) reviewed during the investigative stage of the survey. The findings include: On 8/22/19 the survey observed a medication container with red liquid inside sitting on Resident #35's bedside table. During an interview with the resident he/she reported that the nurse brought the cup of cough medicine in and left it on the table and walked out. During an interview with the resident's nurse Registered Nurse (RN) #23 on 8/22/19 the surveyor asked her what the process was when you are administering medication to a resident. RN #23 replied, I know what to do, but the resident was not ready to take it, so I left it in the room. She further replied what else was I supposed to do? During an interview with the Unit Manager Staff #20 on 8/22/19, the surveyor asked what…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-22 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of a closed medical record and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to keep complete and accurate medical records. This was evident twice for 1 of 42 residents (Resident #185) reviewed during an annual recertification survey. The findings include: 1) Review of Resident #185's closed medical record on 08/20/19 revealed a hand-written Urology consult note, dated 06/07/19, that detailed a Urology assessment and a plan for Resident #185. Resident #185 was referred to the Urologist for abnormal bleeding and assessment of a bladder mass measuring 4.8 x 5.7 x 1.6 cm which was identified on a 05/26/19 sonogram. The Urology consult note indicated Resident #185 needed a follow-up appointment with an OB/GYN physician regarding abnormal bleeding. The Urology consult note also indicated Resident #185 should be followed up with a Urologist in the area for a cystoscopy and bladder biopsy for a definitive diagnosis regarding the bladder mass. The Urology consult note indicated that the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-08-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, facility policy review and review of medical records the facility failed to ensure that a system was followed to prevent and control the transmission of infectious and communicable disease for residents, staff and visitors. This was true for 1 out of 42 residents (Resident #253) reviewed during the annual survey. The facility also failed to conduct an annual review of its Infection Prevention Control Program (IPCP). This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings include: Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL) is an enzyme found in some strains of bacteria. ESBL-producing bacteria is highly communicable and difficult to kill because it is resistant to many antibiotics. Contact precautions are a series of procedures used by caregivers designed to minimize the transmission of infectious organisms by direct or indirect contact with an infected patient or their environment. Review of Resident #253's medical record on 8/22/19 at 9:55 AM revealed the resident had a diagnosis of a urinary tract infection…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to FUTURE CARE/LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH — 18 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 17 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JEFFREY ATTMON TRUST UA DTD 122686 ATTMON PHYLLIS TTEE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 06/01/2009 |
| POWERS, MARK | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 10% | since 12/01/2025 |
| ALVIN POWERS RESIDUARY TRUST FBO JEFFREY POWERS | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2025 |
| ALVIN POWERS RESIDUARY TRUST FBO MARK POWERS | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2025 |
| LEONARD J ATTMAN TR UA FBO WENDE ATTMAN PHYLLIS TTEE | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| SHELLYE ATTMAN GILDEN TR UA DTD ATTMAN PHYLLIS TTEE | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| ATTMAN, GARY | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| ATTMAN, LEONARD | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| ATTMAN, JEFFREY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| GILDEN, SHELLYE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| LEVITAS, WENDE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| POWERS, JEFFREY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2025 |
| FINGLASS, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| FUTURE CARE HEALTH AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| FUTURE CARE HEALTH AND MANAGEMENT OF CHESAPEAKE INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| MAIN, REBECCA JO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| SPADARO, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/05/2013 |
| BAY MANOR G.P., INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2009 |
| BAY MANOR REAL ESTATE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/22/2025 |
| NEGI, MOHIT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/02/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
9 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $3.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MD
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Maryland Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 215186. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-04, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.