St. Joseph's Nursing Home
1222 Tugwell Drive, Catonsville, MD 21228 · Non profit - Church related · 44 certified beds · (410) 747-0026 Medicaid only — no Medicare
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 held steady at 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 | 53.6% | 20.4% | 15.4% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.9% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 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 | 0.0% | 22.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 4.4% | 2.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 30.2% | 22.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.0% | 16.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.7% | 96.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.9% | 5.9% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.1% | 25.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.1% | 13.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.48 | 1.33 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.65 | 1.20 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.09 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 5% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 44 beds and averages 40.1 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 4 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 4.18 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.97 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.84 is at or above 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.48 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.11 to 0.62 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to manage expired food items. This deficiency was observed in the facility's kitchen during the recertification survey.The findings include:On 1/21/26 at 7:45 AM, the surveyor conducted an initial tour of the kitchen with Staff #24 (Cook). The facility's refrigerator contained opened food items with marked expiration dates that had passed. The surveyor noted the following expired items:-One opened bag of bagels (5 remaining) with an expiration date of 9/13/25.-One bag of raisin cinnamon bread with an expiration date of 12/03/25.-One bag of pumpernickel bread (20% remaining) with an expiration date of 11/28/25.-One bag of white bread with an expiration date of 1/13/26.-One bag of Hawaiian bread with an expiration date of 12/18/25.During a subsequent observation of the basement walk-in freezer at 8:00 AM on 1/21/26, the surveyor identified two foil-wrapped packs of ribs dated 11/22/25 and two 5-pound packs of low chicken dated 6/28/25. Staff #24 stated, Those items were for the sisters;…
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 · D2026-01-28 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — isolatedHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of pertinent documentation and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure that the Resident Council was provided with responses, actions, and rationale taken regarding their concerns and to demonstrate the facility's response and rationale for such concerns. The Findings include: The Resident Council is a group of residents that meets regularly on the behalf of all residents in the facility to discuss concerns about facility policies and procedures affecting residents' care, treatment, and quality of life. Facility staff are required to consider resident and family group views and act upon grievances and recommendations. This may include developing or changing policies affecting resident care and life. Facility staff should discuss their decisions with the residents and/or family group and document their response and rationale in writing. The facility must be able to demonstrate their response and rationale. On 1/22/26 at 9:23 AM in an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) she provided 1 sheet…
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 · D2026-01-28 · 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
Based on review of medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the provider of blood in a resident's stool and urine and weakness leading to the resident needing to be fed their meals. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) of 16 residents reviewed during the facility's recertification survey.The findings include:On 1/22/26 at 10:54 AM review of Resident #5's medical record revealed:-12/14/2025 6:43 AM Resident was assisted with toileting this morning. He/she was observed by GNA (Geriatric Nursing Assistant) to be straining, and he/she had some BM (bowel movement) mixed with a moderate amount of blood in the toilet.-12/14/2025 11:42 AM Around 7:30 AM private aide reported that resident had a moderate amount of blood on his/her depends, also resident, also blood was observed in the toilet after bowel movement.-12/14/2025 11:56 AM Before lunch nurse aid reported that resident needs more help with transferring (is weaker) and probably he/she will need to use mechanical lift (next time when toileting).-12/14/2025 6:58 PM Resident…
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 · D2026-01-28 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of medical records and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the physician regarding the status of a resident's indwelling Foley catheter. Specifically, staff failed to obtain physician orders for the replacement of dislodged catheters and failed to document these re-insertions in the medical record. This evident one resident (Resident #7) of one resident reviewed for urinary catheter care during this recertification survey.The findings include:A Foley catheter is an indwelling urinary catheter (IDC) that drains urine from the bladder into a collection bag.During a review of Resident #7's medical records from November 2025 to January 2026 on 1/22/26 at 1:08 PM, it revealed that progress notes indicated the catheter was found dislodged or came out on six separate occasions: 11/13/25, 11/20/25, 11/26/25, 12/04/25, 12/16/25, and 1/15/26. While notes indicated the catheter was re-inserted each time, there was no evidence that the physician was notified or that an order was obtained for re-insertion.Further review of 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 · D2026-01-28 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews with facility staff and review of medical records and facility policy, it was determined that the facility failed to address pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner. This was evident for 2 (Resident #2 and Resident #11) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the facility's recertification survey. The findings include: The Medication Regimen Review (MRR) is a review of the medication regimen (plan) of each resident with the goal of promoting positive outcomes and minimizing adverse (negative) consequences and potential risks associated with medications. The MRR must be completed at least once a month by a licensed pharmacist and includes a review of the medical record to identify, report, and resolve medication-related problems, errors, and/or other irregularities. Irregularity refers to use of medication that is inconsistent with accepted standards of practice for providing pharmaceutical services, not supported by medical evidence, and/or that impedes or interferes with achieving the intended outcomes. An irregularity also includes, but…
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 · D2026-01-28 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary 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 review of medical records and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure medications were ordered with an adequate indication for use. This was evident for 1 (Resident #8) out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during the facility's recertification survey.The findings include: Adequate Indication for use refers to the identified, documented clinical rationale for administering a medication that is based upon an assessment of the resident's condition and therapeutic goals, and after any safer treatments have been deemed clinically contraindicated.On 1/23/26 at 10:54 AM review of Resident #8's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, unspecified dementia, severe, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Further review revealed the resident was ordered:-Candesartan Cilexetil Oral Tablet 16 MG (milligrams) Give 1 tablet by…
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 · D2026-01-28 · tag F0868 — isolatedHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on review of facility records and interview with facility staff, it was determined the facility staff failed to ensure the required committee members consistently attended monthly Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings.The findings include:On 1/28/26 at 1:09 PM review of the facility's QAPI monthly attendance records for 1/2025 to 12/2025 revealed the following:-The Medical Director failed to attend 5 of 12 meetings (May 2025, August 2025, September 2025, November 2025, December 2025).-The Nursing Home Administrator failed to attend 1 of 12 meetings (May 2025).On 1/28/26 at 1:36 PM in an interview with the Infection Preventionist/Staff Educator/QAPI Secretary (IP/SE/QAPIS #1) when asked how long she had participated in QAPI meetings, she stated she had been in the QAPI Secretary role for about 2 years. During the interview the 2025 QAPI attendance sheets were reviewed by IP/SE/QAPIS #1, and she reviewed, verified and confirmed the surveyor's findings. The surveyor shared this was a concern and she acknowledged understanding of the concern.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-28 · 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, interview, and medical record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure maintaining an effective infection control program by failing to order contact precautions in a timely manner. This deficiency was identified for one resident (Resident #19) out of three reviewed for infection control during the annual recertification survey.The findings include:During the tour of the facility on 1/21/26 at 10:18 AM, the surveyor observed the contact precaution signage posted on the wall of Resident #19's room entrance.On 1/22/26 at 10:38 AM, the surveyor reviewed the records of three randomly residents currently receiving antibiotics. The review revealed that Resident #19 was diagnosed with Shingles (Herpes Zoster) by the attending provider on 1/19/26. Shingles is a painful, blistering rash caused by the reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus; per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), contact precautions are required to prevent the spread of the virus. However, no order for contact precautions was placed for Resident #19 until…
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 · D2026-01-28 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record reviews and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that an employee's COVID-19 vaccination status was monitored and documented. This finding was evident for one of five staff members (Staff #17) whose immunization records were reviewed during the recertification survey.The findings include:The COVID-19 vaccine is intended to provide acquired immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease.On 1/22/26 at 11:38 AM, the surveyor reviewed the health files of five randomly selected employees. The review revealed that Staff #17 (Dietary Aide), who was hired in October 2024, lacked documentation to support their COVID-19 vaccination status.During an interview on 1/22/26 at 1:45 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP #1) explained that upon hire, the facility collects copies of vaccination records and reviews the immunization status of all new employees. She stated that these records should include Flu, MMR, Hepatitis B, Tdap, Varicella, Tuberculosis (TB), and…
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 before2024-10-09 · 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 observations and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store foods in a manner that protects them from contamination and in a manner to prevent spoilage. This was evident during the initial kitchen tour. The findings include: On 10/07/24 at 8:35 AM, an initial kitchen tour was conducted with Staff #1. An observation was made in the large walk-in refrigerator of the kitchen. A box of 6 yogurts with expiration date of 9/25/2024 were present. An open and undated package of bacon was seen sitting on an open rack above open containers of produce. These findings were verified by Staff #1. After surveyor intervention, Staff #1 discarded the box of 6 expired yogurts and the open and undated package of bacon. On 10/09/24 at 9:18 AM, an interview was conducted with the Certified Dietary Manager (Staff #8). When asked who handles the storage of perishable foods in the refrigerator, Staff #8 stated that she handles all the storing of the food products in the kitchen. When asked what their expectation was for how to check for product's expiration dates, Staff #8…
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 · D2019-10-22 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that a staff member did not make negative remarks about Residents #23 and #32 in front of them. This was evident for 2 of 5 residents present in the Day Room when the remarks were made. The findings include: On 10/22/19 at 12:05 PM, 5 residents were observed sitting in the Day Room. Two residents were sitting at tables being fed by Geriatric Nursing Aides (GNA)s #2 and #3. GNA #1 was standing in the middle of the room next to a resident but with her back to the surveyor. She was overheard saying, [He/she] has spit at me 3 times and I'm not going to feed [him/her] anymore. A tray on the table next to this resident had the name of Resident #32 on it. The surveyor then left the room to make observations in the main dining room. At 12:25 PM on 10/22/19 when the surveyor returned to the day room, GNA 3# was sitting at a table feeding a resident and GNAs #1 and #2 were sitting together at a different table and each feeding a resident. GNA #1 had her back to the surveyor and 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.
“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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in MD
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 21E104. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-28, 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.