Autumn Lake Healthcare At Bradford Oaks
7520 Surratts Road, Clinton, MD 20735 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 180 certified beds · (301) 856-1660 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (35) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 19% 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 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 3 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 | 14.6% | 20.4% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.5% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.7% | 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 | 2.0% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.1% | 22.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.4% | 16.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.7% | 96.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 5.9% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.2% | 25.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.3% | 13.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 53.5% | 80.6% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.5% | 21.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.2% | 9.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.99 | 1.33 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.71 | 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.
4.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 394 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.0% 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 139 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 4.4%CMS range 3.0–7.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 15.4%CMS range 12.4–18.2 | 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 | 77.0% | 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 | 53.2% | 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 | 65.5% | 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 | 99.3% | 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 | 94.5% | 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 | 97.1% | 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 | 0.3% | 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 | 4.2% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 5.0–10.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.24 | 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 180 beds and averages 170.4 residents a day — about 95% 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 3.476 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.11 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 3.16 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.61 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.37 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as 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.
35 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 24 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · G2019-12-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of medical records and staff interviews, it was determined the facility staff failed to provide adequate supervision to ensure the safety of Resident #224 whom was cognitively and functionally impaired. This resulted in a laceration and fracture of the Resident's left arm. This was evident for 1 out of 1 resident investigated for accidents during the survey. The findings include: The facility's investigation of the reported incident MD00146814 was reviewed on12/5/2019 at 10:00 AM. The facility's investigation revealed that, on 10/14/19 around 4:45 AM, Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #11 was assisting Resident #224 with morning care. During care, the resident's bed linens became soiled. The GNA turned the Resident onto his/her left side and asked the resident to hold on to the bedrail in that position. The GNA, leaving the resident in that position, went to the door to a linen cart that was outside the bedroom to retrieve clean linen. While the GNA was away from the bed, the resident rolled out of the bed onto the floor and sustained a laceration to the left arm.…
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 before2026-04-10 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards for oxygen administration. This was found evident of 6 (Resident #13, #23, #41, #133, #149, #171) out of 7 residents reviewed for respiratory care during the survey.Nasal cannula- a medical device used to provide supplemental oxygen therapy to people who have lower oxygen levels.An oxygen concentrator is a medical device that extracts oxygen from room air by filtering out or separating the nitrogen from the oxygen. The oxygen passes through a filter system and is then stored within the device for delivery based on the flow meter setting. The findings include:1.On 4/6/26 at 8:16 AM, the surveyor observed that Resident #13 had 4.5 liters/minute of oxygen being administered via nasal cannula. The nasal cannula was hooked directly to an oxygen concentrator machine in Resident #13's room. No date was labeled on the tubing. Additionally, a partially used humidification bottle (not attached to the oxygen tubing) was also not…
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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0559 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to share a room with spouse or roommate of choice and receive written notice before a change is made.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the resident/resident representative with written notification of a new roommate. This was evident for 1(Resident#73) of 1 resident reviewed for roommate changes during the recertification survey.The findings include:During an interview on 04/06/26 at 10:44 AM Resident #73 reported that they were not informed in advance that he/she would receive a new roommate. On 04/08/26 at 7:00 AM a review of the clinical record revealed that Resident #73 received a new roommate on 02/04/26. Further review revealed no evidence that the facility notified the resident/resident representative prior to the new roommate's arrival on 02/04/26.During an interview on 04/08/26 at 11:00 AM Admissions Director stated that the Admissions Department was responsible for notification and that she verbally informed Resident #73 twenty-four hours prior to the new roommate's arrival. When asked if the resident/resident representative was given a written notice, the Admissions Director responded No.On 04/10/26 at 7:10 AM…
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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the personal privacy of a Resident. This finding was found to be evident in 1 (Resident #72) out of 1 Residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The findings include:Urinary Drainage Bag collects urine from a catheter designed to be kept below bladder level to prevent backflow and infections. Urinary drainage bags hang on the bedframe or wheelchair. At 12:34 PM on 4/6/2026 the surveyor observed Resident #72 in bed with a yellow substance in the urinary drainage bag hanging on the bed frame. On 4/7/2026 the surveyor observed Resident #72 at 8:30 AM in bed with the urinary drainage bag in view hanging on the bed frame.In an interview with the North Unit Nurse Manager at 8:45 AM on 4/7/2026 the surveyor conveyed that Resident #72 had a catheter and urinary drainage bag, but there was not a privacy bag on the urinary drainage bag. The Unit Manager accompanied the surveyor to Resident #72's room where Resident was observed in bed with the urinary drainage bag hanging on the bed frame without a…
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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 observation and staff interviews it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe, comfortable, homelike environment for Residents. This finding was found to be evident in 9 (Resident rooms/bathrooms N34 N39, N40, N42, N46, N50, N34, N62 and S72) out of 9 Resident rooms/bathrooms reviewed, and 1 (North Unit shower room) out of 1 shower rooms reviewed for physical environment during the recertification survey.The findings include: 1.On 4/6/26 at 9:58 AM, during the initial tour of the facility, the surveyor observed in room [ROOM NUMBER]-B that resident #8's wardrobe cabinet door was scraped up, about 4x10 inches to the side and that the 2nd draw from the bottom-up area measuring about 2x8 inches were all scraped off revealing the cream-colored wood inside. On bed 34-A's nightstand were also observed an area on top measuring about 2x4 inches that was scraped off. On the drawer top was another scrapped area measuring about 13 x1.5-inch. In the residents' bathroom, brown stains were observed…
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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff and Resident interviews and surveyor record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide notification to the Ombudsman of Residents that transferred to the hospital. This finding was found to be evident in 2 (Resident #10 and #72) out of 2 Residents reviewed for discharge process.The findings include:At 6:10 AM on 4/8/2026 the surveyor conducted a record review of Resident #10's medical record. Review of the medical record revealed that Resident #10 transferred to the hospital on the following dates 7/20/2025, 9/3/2025, 9/20/2025, 10/5/2025, 10/11/2025 and 3/25/2026 over the past year. Further review of the medical record revealed that there was no documentation located that the Ombudsman was notified of Resident #10's transfers to the hospital.In an interview with the Social Services Director at 8:26 AM on 4/8/2026 the surveyor asked what the process was for notification to the Ombudsman of Resident transfers to the hospital. SSD stated that the Social Services Department sends an email to the Ombudsman monthly with a list of Residents who…
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 before2026-04-10 · 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 Resident and staff interviews and surveyor record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that 1) care plan meetings were conducted and documented for Resident # 13, and 2) care plans were updated and revised following changes in Resident's condition. This finding was found to be evident for 4 (Resident #7, #11, # 72, and #23) out of 5 Residents reviewed for care planning. The findings include: Care Plan is a personalized comprehensive roadmap addressing an individual's health, social, and functional needs. It covers activities of daily living (ADL), assessment of needs, safety modifications, health and medical care, including diagnoses. Care plan must be reviewed regularly by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) and updated to reflect changes in health status or care needs. The care plan includes problems, goals, interventions and evaluations. 1) On 4/6/26 at 8:13 AM, the surveyor conducted an interview with Resident #13. During the interview Resident #13 stated that he/she had not had a care plan meeting in a while. On 4/7/26 at 7 AM, the surveyor…
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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, clinical record review and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide an activities program to meet the needs and interests of a resident. This was evident for 1 (Resident #14) of 1 resident reviewed for activities during the recertification survey.The findings include:Resident #14 diagnoses included Cognitive Communication Deficit, Other Schizoaffective Disorders and Encounter for Palliative Care. The resident was admitted to Hospice in November 2025.Several observations by the surveyor on 04/06/26 and 04/07/26 revealed Resident #14 lying in bed with no form of activity being provided in his/her room.A review of the resident's clinical record on 04/08/26 at 6:21 AM revealed a care plan was initiated on 06/17/25 and revised on 03/25/26 with the following: Focus: (Resident) has some group setting interest as indicated during (his/her) activity evaluation. Resident is verbally able to make (his/her) needs known. Goal: (Resident) will have the opportunity to enjoy activities of choice through the next review date.Intervention: Staff to…
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 · D2026-04-10 · 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 review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a follow-up assessment was completed in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 (Resident #168) of 1 residents reviewed for skin/head-to-toe assessments. The findings include:On 04/06/26 at 1:30 PM, the surveyor interviewed the resident's surrogate. The surrogate expressed that the areas of concern included an undocumented incident involving a rodent in the resident's bed on 03/19/26 and the facility's adherence to required skin checks and monitoring protocols. The surrogate provided the surveyor with hospice notes that stated the resident had a scratch/skin tear on his/her lower extremities. According to the notes, the resident was asked how the wounds occurred and he/she stated It feels like something bit me. The facility believed the resident was confused and that the accuracy of the resident's statements could not be relied upon.On 04/08/26 at 3:00 PM, the surveyor interviewed…
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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to administer enteral feeding consistent with professional standards of practice. This was found to be evident for 1 (#74) out of 1 Resident observed for enteral feeding during the recertification survey.The findings include:Enteral feeding (tube feeding) delivers liquid nutrition directly into the stomach or small intestine, used when oral intake is unsafe or inadequate.On 04/06/2026 at 9:13 AM, the surveyor observed tube feeding infusing with no date on tubing or bottle. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 verified the missing date on the tube feeding bottle and tubing and stated it should be dated when hung. On 04/07/2026 at 7:38 AM, the Director of Nursing acknowledged the concern about the missing date on Resident #74's enteral feeding.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-10 · tag F0711 — isolatedEnsure the resident's doctor reviews the resident's care, writes, signs and dates progress notes and orders, at each required visit.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews with staff, it was determined that the primary medical provider failed to review the total program of care for 1 (Resident #7) out of 50 residents reviewed during the survey.A suprapubic catheter (SPC) is a surgically created connection between the urinary bladder and the skin in the abdomen used to drain urine through a tube from the bladder to a collection bag in individuals with obstruction of normal urinary flow.Foley catheter is a flexible tube inserted through the urethra into the bladder to drain urine. It is held in place by a small, water-filled balloon.Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastric (PEG) tube, also known as a g-tube or feeding tube, is placed in a procedure that inserts a tube from the abdomen into the stomach to deliver nutrition, fluids, and medications directly into the stomach.The findings include:On 4/7/26 at 7:15 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #7's medical record. The review revealed that on 4/1/26 Nurse Practitioner (NP) #33 wrote a progress note after a follow-up visit. The note stated Resident #7 was a poor historian due…
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 24 citations
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-10 · 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 record review and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place that ensured a Resident's medication irregularity reports were reviewed by the primary care physician and the actions taken based on the recommendations were being documented. This was found evident of 1 (Resident #13) of 5 Residents reviewed for medication regimen review.The findings include:Medication Regimen Review (MRR) or Drug Regimen Review is a thorough evaluation of the medication regimen of a resident, with the goal of promoting positive outcomes and minimizing adverse consequences and potential risks associated with medication. The MRR includes review of the medical record in order to prevent, identify, report, and resolve medication-related problems, medication errors, or other irregularities. The MRR also involves collaborating with other members of the Inter Disciplinary Team (IDT), including the resident, their family, and/or resident representative.On 4/7/26 at 8:59 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #13's MMR's along with Resident #13's medication orders. 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 · D2026-04-10 · 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
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that each resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary medications. This was evident for 1 (Resident #4) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication during the annual survey.The findings include:On 4/7/26 at 11:47 AM, Review of Resident #4's medication orders reveal that resident has two medications that were ordered for pain management. The first order was for Tylenol to be given when the pain level is at 1-5. The second order is for Oxycodone HCl Oral Tablet 20 MG (Oxycodone HCl) Give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for Pain 6-10 Further review of the March 2026 medication administration records (MAR) revealed that on 3/6, 3/7, 3/28 and 3/29, Resident #4 was given oxycodone a narcotic medication use to control high level pain when their pain levels were between 4-5.In an interview with Staff # 4, a unit manager, she was asked about pain levels and what they signify. She stated that pain levels of 1-5…
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 · D2026-04-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews with staff, it was determined that the facility failed to store medication in a locked compartment. This was found evident on 2 of 2 random observations.The findings include:On 4/7/26 at 6:31 AM, the surveyor observed the East hallway and noted a medication cart that was unlocked and unattended next to room [ROOM NUMBER] and across from room [ROOM NUMBER]. The surveyor noted the top drawer consisted of stock medications in bottles, the 2nd drawer contained medication and vials, the 3rd drawer contained additional medication, noting Narcan, and the 4th drawer contained supplies.At 6:34 AM, the surveyor asked a staff member, who had just come out of a resident's room, who was in charge of the medication cart and was told Registered Nurse (RN) #14. The surveyor then interviewed RN #14. During the interview RN #14 stated that she had just given pain medication to a resident and must have forgotten to lock the cart. She confirmed that the medication cart was supposed to be locked…
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 before2026-04-10 · 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
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: F812, F 584 and F757F812Based on observation and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in a manner that prevents foodborne illness to the residents. This was evident during the annual survey and has the potential to affect most residents in the facility.The findings includeOn 4/6/26 at 7:53 AM an Initial tour of the kitchen was conducted accompanied by Staff #27 a temporary certified dietary manager (CDM). In the walk-in refrigerator, there were about 60 dessert bowls with no dates on them left on the roll-in refrigerator tray racks containing cinnamon apples and pears. Two cucumbers covered with white moldlike substances were in a Ziplock bag on the fridge shelf. Staff #27 stated that the desserts in the bowls should have been dated and that the cucumbers were bad. She proceeded to toss them out.Further observation of the general kitchen prep area revealed sections of white patches on the kitchen floor, the floor was not moped, areas with brown stains were…
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 before2026-04-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and staff interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain infection prevention and control practices. This finding was found to be evident on 1 (North Nursing Unit) out of 3 nursing units reviewed for physical environment during the annual recertification survey.The findings include:The surveyor toured the North Nursing Unit at 8:05 AM on 4/6/2026.During the tour, the surveyor observed at 10:00 AM on 4/6/2026 the clean linen cart uncovered outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The clean linen cart had 3 shelves full of linen (bed sheets, towels, washcloths) and a blue plastic cover that was resting on top of the clean linen cart. In an interview with staff nurse #21 at 10:35 AM on 4/6/2026 the surveyor asked what the expectation was for the clean linen cart to be covered, and he/she stated that the clean linen cart should be covered with the cover. Staff nurse #21 proceeded to cover the clean linen cart with the attached blue plastic cover.The North Unit Nurse Manager 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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0917 — isolatedMake sure each resident has 1) at least one window to the outside in a room; 2) a room at or above ground level; 3) adequate bedding; 4) furniture that meets the resident's needs; or 5) adequate closet space.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation and staff interviews, it was determined the facility failed to provide individual closet space for a resident. This was evident for Resident # 20 during the annual re-certification survey.The findings include:On 4/6/2026 at 8:56 AM: During the initial observation of Resident #20's room, two stand-alone closets were noted on Resident #20's side of the room, positioned behind the dividing curtain. Resident #20 repeatedly attempted to close the closet door near their bed and nodded yes when asked if the open door was bothering them. Both closets contained shirts and pants. When Resident #20 was asked if the clothes were theirs, Resident #62, the roommate, stated that all the clothes in both closets belonged to them. On 4/6/2026 at 9:06 AM: Staff #17, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was questioned about the two closets on Resident #20's side of the room and whose clothes were inside, to which Staff #17 replied, I am not sure. Resident #62…
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 · D2026-04-10 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview it was determined that the facility failed to have call light cords accessible for Residents and failed to ensure that the resident's call system was functioning properly. This finding was found to be evident in 2 (Resident #68 and #76) out of 28 Residents reviewed call light accessibility and 1 (Resident #7) of 1 call light reviewed for call light functionality.The findings include:Resident Call System is a mandatory communication network in healthcare facilities, allowing Residents to alert staff from their bedside or bathrooms. These systems, ranging from traditional wired pull cords to advanced wireless pendants with fall detection and real time location systems, improve safety and care coordination. Every Resident must have a way of calling for assistance from their bedside and in their bathrooms. 1.On 4/6/2026 at 8:05 AM the surveyor toured the North Nursing Unit. The surveyor observed at 9:05 AM on 4/6/2026 that Residents #68 and #76 did not have an accessible call light in the Resident room. Both Residents were alert, ambulatory 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 · D2026-04-10 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program. This was evident for 1 (Resident #168) out of 1 residents reviewed for pests during the recertification survey. The findings include: On 04/06/26 at 10:00 AM, the surveyor observed a rodent bait box and hole that was sealed with a yellow substance in the resident's room during the initial tour. On 04/06/26 at 1:30 PM, the surveyor interviewed the resident's surrogate. The surrogate stated that he/she had concerns about rodent activity in the resident's room due to two known sightings in the facility that the hospice staff documented during their visits. The surrogate provided the surveyor with documentation which consisted of a medical social services clinical note, a hospice aide visit note, a hospice nursing clinical note and a copy of an email that he/she sent to the ombudsman regarding pests. On 01/20/26, the medical social services clinical note stated that a large fat…
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 · D2026-01-08 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 the facility staff failed to notify the Responsible Party when a resident (Resident #2) Pressure Ulcer worsened. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.The findings include:Resident #2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Pressure-Induced Deep Tissue Damage of Right Heel and Pressure-Induced Deep Tissue Damage of other site. The resident expired in [DATE].On [DATE] at 7:45 AM a review of Resident #2's clinical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility from the hospital on [DATE] with several injuries to the skin including an Unstageable Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region.On [DATE] the facility's Wound Consultant assessed Resident #2's skin injuries and treatment recommendations were implemented. The consultant conducted weekly evaluations of the wounds.Further review of the clinical…
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 before2026-01-08 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours. This was evident for 1 (Resident #5) of 5 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.The findings include:The baseline care plan is a document that outlines how to provide care for a new nursing home resident. It's created within 48 hours of admission. The plan's purpose is to reduce the risk of adverse events and ensure the resident receives quality care.On 1/8/26 at 11:30 AM, a review of Resident #5's medical record showed an admission date of 10/13/25. However, the baseline care plan was not completed and signed until 10/28/2025, exceeding the 48-hour requirement. This was confirmed by the Resident Representative.On 1/8/25 at 12:23 PM, during an Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she confirmed that baseline care plans must be completed and signed within 48 hours of admission, with a copy provided to the resident or their Representative. The DON was informed of this concern and acknowledged the finding.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-08 · 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 review of complaints, interviews and record reviews, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) hold a care plan meeting of the Interdisciplinary Team for a resident at the time of the quarterly revision of their care plans and 2) review and revise the care plan to meet resident's needs. This was evident for 2 (Resident #2 and #5) of 2 resident reviewed for care planning during complaint survey. The findings include: 1) Minimum Data Set (MDS) is a core set of screening, clinical, and functional status data elements, including common definitions and coding categories, which form the foundation of a comprehensive assessment for all residents of nursing homes certified to participate in Medicare or Medicaid. Resident #2 was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Pressure-Induced Deep Tissue Damage of Right Heel and Pressure-Induced Deep Tissue Damage of other site. 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 before2026-01-08 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of a complaint, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to write a physician's order for a warm compress. This was evident for 1 (Resident #4) of 5 residents reviewed during the complaint survey.The findings include:On 1/5/26 at 1:20 PM, a review of complaint #2662431 indicated that Resident #4 was reported with a swollen lip on 11/5/25. A care plan meeting note dated 11/6/25 suggested, Resident #4 was reassessed and noted that he/she may have bitten his/her left lip due to jarred teeth or potentially due to mouth care.On 1/6/26 at 7:45 AM, a review of the progress notes identified the following entries that stated that the Physician was notified and a new order was received to apply warm compress:1. 11/5/25 at 10:29 PM, Change in condition: Resident was noted with left lip swollen with the skin intact, on assessment resident was not notice to be in pain, and no new wound noted. Resident was noted with left lip swelling. MD (Doctor of Medicine) notified, new order to apply warm compress.2. 11/6/25 11:01 AM, General Nurses Note:…
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 before2025-10-16 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on resident interviews, observations, medical record review and interviews with facility staff it was determined the facility failed to adhere to professional standards of practice when administering medications to residents. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident # 7 and # 5) of 2 residents reviewed for medications, and 1(Resident # 13) of 3 residents reviewed during a medication administration observation conducted during a complaint survey.The findings include: 1) An interview was conducted with Resident #7 on 10/15/25 at 3:45 PM and the resident was asked if s/he had any concerns regarding care. The resident acknowledged that s/he submitted concerns to the state agency but as of current, the concerns regarding care have improved, with one exception: medications are still being given late. On the same date at 4:00PM, Resident # 7 medical record was reviewed and the medication administration audit report for October 1, 2025, revealed the resident received scheduled physician ordered medications late. The following concerns were identified: 1.Metoprolol Tartrate 100…
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 · E2025-02-20 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain a safe and sanitary environment for residents, visitors, and staff. This was evident for the parking lot and the East hallway during the survey. The findings include: On 2/4/25, at 9:45 AM upon entry to the parking lot area in front of the facility's front doors, there were masks, gloves, and various paper packaging littering the ground. The same observations were made on 2/5/25 at 8:50 AM, 2/5/25 at 3:00 PM, 2/7/25 at 7:00 AM, 2/7/25 at 1:00 PM, 2/10/25 at 8:00 AM, 2/10/25 at 4:10 PM, 2/11/25 at 8:30 AM. On 2/11/25 at 1:00 PM, a pile of nonsterile clear gloves was found in a parking spot, as well as the other trash noted previously. On 2/13/25 at 9:30 AM, there was a piece of cardboard laying in a parking spot, dirty masks, gloves, a paper cup with trash in it. At the doorway was a plastic bag used for produce at a grocery store, that looked like it had been ran over. An interview with the Maintenance Director 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 · D2025-02-20 · 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
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to have a process in place to ensure that allegations of abuse, were reported to the state agency (SA) and within the required timeframe. This was evident for 1 (R40) of 32 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: A review of the facility's investigation file for the facility reported incident MD00207668 on 2/11/25 at 2:34 PM revealed a statement written by LPN 5. According to his statement he became aware of R40's allegation of abuse against Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA)12 on 7/13/24 at 3:20 PM. On the incident report LPN5 reported that he reported it to Registered Nurse (RN)6. Further review revealed the initial report form, and the facility documented they became aware of the abuse allegation on 7/14/24 at 12N and reported to SA 7/14/24 at 1:30 PM. No confirmation email included. On 2/13/25 at 2:58 PM a review of the email confirmation for sending the initial report confirmed it was sent to the SA on 7/14/24 at 1:27 PM. An interview with LPN5 on 2/13/25 at 3:44 PM confirmed that he 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 · D2025-02-20 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined facility staff failed to ensure that an alleged perpetrator had no further access to vulnerable residents during an investigation and to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegation. This was evident for 1 (R40) of 32 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: On 2/5/25 at 10:30 AM a review of the facility's policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation with no implementation date but was reviewed on 11/13/23. In the section for definitions, Misappropriation of resident property is included as abuse. In section IV B the facility identifies Resident reports of theft of property, or missing property is an indicator of possible abuse. In section V the facility states that identifying and interviewing all involved people including witnesses as part of a thorough investigation and to focus the investigation on determining if abuse has occurred and to what extent. In section VI the facility's expectation for protecting the residents includes room or staffing changes. In section VII, the Administrator is responsible…
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 before2025-02-20 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to provide a baseline care plan to the resident's representative. This was evident for 1 (#12) of 9 residents reviewed for care to prevent pressure ulcers. The findings include: Baseline care plan - must include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for each resident immediately upon their admission, which would address resident-specific health and safety concerns to prevent decline or injury, such as elopement or fall risk, and would identify needs for supervision, behavioral interventions, and assistance with activities of daily living, as necessary. During a review of a complaint regarding Resident (R)12 on 2/5/25 at 9:55 AM, it was revealed that the complainant reported they were not given a copy of the resident's baseline care plan or made aware of the medications the resident was taking. On 2/18/25 at 1:03 PM, a review of the closed record for R12 revealed no evidence that the baseline care plan or list of medications were given to the resident or resident representative. A…
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 before2025-02-20 · 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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure that food items in the dry storage area were discarded upon the use by date printed on the carton. This failed practice had the potential to affect the six residents that received nectar thickened liquids and the nine residents that received med pass 2.0 supplement from the kitchen. Findings include: On 02/04/25 at 5:54 AM during the initial tour of the dry storage area, there were two cases of 22 one-quart cartons of Med Plus 2.0 vanilla nutritional that displayed a use by date of 11/17/24. Additionally, there was one case of nine one-quart cartons of Thickened Dairy Drink that displayed a use by date of 01/01/25. The Dietary Manager (DM) stated she would remove those items and dispose of them. During an interview on 02/07/25 at 3:46 PM, the DM stated that items were not in rotation, it could possibly make residents that receive those products sick. Everyone should be checking the date on food items when new products are brought in. Review of the facility's policy titled, Food Safety Requirements,…
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 before2025-02-20 · 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
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure the resident's medical records were complete and accurate. This was evident for 2 (R630 and R12) of 92 residents reviewed during the survey. Findings include: 1) During a review of a complaint regarding Resident (R)12 on 2/5/25 at 9:55 AM, it was revealed that the complainant reported concerns that staff were not turning and repositioning the resident to prevent skin breakdown. On 2/20/25 at 8:41 AM a review of geriatric nursing assistance (GNA) documentation for turning and repositioning of the resident for the dates of 10/20/21 - 11/17/21 revealed the resident was dependent on staff for turning and repositioning. However, staff documented that they had not turned and repositioned the resident on the following dates: 10/21/21, 10/22/21, 10/24/21, 10/25/21, 10/26/21, 10/28/21, 10/30/21, and 10/31/21. The findings were reviewed with the Regional Director of Nursing (DON) and she stated she would review the medical record. The Regional DON reported on 12/20/25 at 12:10 PM that she found 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 before2025-02-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow infection control procedures related to droplet precautions for one of one resident (R 44) reviewed for isolation precautions out of a total sample of 39. This had the potential to cause cross-contamination with other residents and staff. Findings include: Review of R44's Face Sheet, located under the Profile tab of the electronic medical record (EMR), revealed R44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of heart disease, end stage renal disease, and type II diabetes. Review of R44's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 12/01/24 and located under the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) tab of the EMR, revealed R44 was dependent for eating, dressing, bed mobility, toileting, showering/bathing and transfers. The MDS showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated R44 was cognitively intact. Record review 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 · Ecited before2019-12-10 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard 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 review of medical records, observation of patient care, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that residents' assessments of bed mobility accurately reflected residents' ability to maneuver themselves in bed. This was evident for 3 (Residents #1, #2, #3) of 9 residents identified by the facility's lift assessments as requiring the assistance of two staff to reposition in bed. The findings include: A review was performed on 2/6/20 at 10:15 AM of education given to staff regarding bed mobility following the annual survey with end date 12/11/2019. During the review, it was found that staff were educated to rely on a label outside of resident rooms to determine how many staff were required to assist the resident with positioning in bed. If a resident required 2 staff members to reposition in bed, the label outside the resident's room would end with a 2. Otherwise, the resident required only 1 staff member's assistance to reposition in bed. During an interview with Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #3 that took place on 2/6/20 at…
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 · D2019-12-10 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, the facility staff failed to ensure that Resident # 22 and Resident #160 's nails were clean. This was evident for 2 out of 6 residents investigated for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) during the survey process. The findings include: On 12/3/19 around 11:18 AM during resident observations it was noted that Resident #22 fingernails on both hands were caked with dirt. It was shown to staff #8. Per the Minimum Data Set (MDS), the resident is an extensive assist for personal hygiene. On 12/04/19 around 08:44 AM while interviewing Resident #160 it was noted that the nails on both hands were dirty. The facility failed to maintain adequate grooming
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-10 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interviews the facility staff failed to ensure that Resident #64's tracheostomy was setup to the doctor's orders. This was evident for 1 out of 1 resident investigated for a tracheostomy during the survey process. The findings include: On 12/10/19 while reviewing the records for Resident #64's tracheostomy care and set up, the order revealed that the trach tubing is to be changed monthly. Also, the oxygen level is to be set on 2 liters/min. While assessing the resident, it was noted that there was no date on the tubing, therefore the writer could not determine the age of the tubing. Staff #13 was shown the tubing and stated that the tubing will be changed. In addition, the 02 concentrator was set at 5 liters/min as opposed to the 2L noted in the resident's orders. The Eastside Unit Manager, Staff #10, was informed and verified the 02 level at 5 liters. Facility staff did not follow the physician orders.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-12-10 · 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 meal service observations and staff interviews it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow infection control practices and guidelines to prevent the development and transmission of disease by failing to Demonstrate appropriate hand hygiene to prevent the spread of infection during lunch meal service involving resident's (R#61). This was evident during dining observation. The findings include: On 12/02/19 at 12:30 PM during lunch meal observation in the facilities main dining room, Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #9 was observed repositioning Resident #61 who was being wheeled into the main dining room by another staff member. GNA #9 was observed touching with his/she hands to reposition Resident #61's right lower leg and foot placing it back in the wheelchair. GNA #9 was, also, observed retuning to the food tray table and touching and serving another lunch plate without washing hands or sanitizing hands before touching and serving a lunch food plate to another resident in the dining room. On 12/02/19 at 12:35 PM Surveyor # 39709 conducted a staff interview…
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 AUTUMN LAKE HEALTHCARE — 59 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 58 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 58; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7520 SURRATTS HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2021 |
| STERN, ARYEH | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 05/01/2021 |
| SCHWARTZ, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2021 |
| ACCURATE STAFFING LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2021 |
| BRAND SONNENSCHINE LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2021 |
| MUO, OFO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/21/2023 |
| EIDLISZ, SOLOMON | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/27/2025 |
| GLUCK, RIVKA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/27/2025 |
| SEWARALTHAHAB, KAMAL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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.
About 78% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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 215165. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-10, 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.