Broadmead
13801 York Road, Cockeysville, MD 21030 · Non profit - Corporation · 70 certified beds · (443) 578-8020 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
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 | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 13.2% | 20.4% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.4% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 0.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.4% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.5% | 22.8% | 6.5% | typical |
| 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 | 2.3% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.5% | 22.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 5.8% | 16.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.7% | 96.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.5% | 5.9% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.8% | 25.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.2% | 13.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 79.9% | 80.6% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.9% | 21.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.9% | 9.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.67 | 1.33 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.40 | 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.
70.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 421 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.0% 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 185 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 0.59 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 51% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through 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 | 70.2%CMS range 67.2–73.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.6%CMS range 8.2–13.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from 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 | 54.0% | 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 | 70.3% | 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 | 43.2% | 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 | 99.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 94.1% | 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 | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.0% | 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 | 5.4%CMS range 3.2–7.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.66 | 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 70 beds and averages 37.5 residents a day — about 54% occupied, or roughly 32 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 5.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 2.09 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.83 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 5.38 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.85 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 2.24 to 1.71 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 36% 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-11-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a tour of the kitchen, observation, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to label stored food items to ensure safety and prevent contamination which could lead to unsafe food and potential illness.The findings include:During the initial tour of the kitchen on 11/17/2025 at 08:00 AM, the following items were found opened and used without any labeling:Walk in Refrigerator #1:1gallon [NAME] sauce w/ red raspberries1gallon sweet baby rays BBQ sauce x2 bottles1 gallon buffalo sauce x 2 bottles1 gallon each of salad dressings; Ranch, Golden Italian and French3 pound Hummus container1 32 oz horse radish containerWalk in Refrigerator #2:1 gallon Mayo1 gallon Harachino sauce 1 gallon pickle chips During an interview with staff # 8 on 11/17/2025 at 08:15 AM, he/she stated that all items that are opened and or used should have had a label with a use by date. Staff # 8 also stated that staff will need to be re-educated on labeling and dating of food items. On 11/19/2025 at 10:12 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 · E2025-11-20 · tag F0887 — patternEducate 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 record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate records of staff COVID-19 vaccination status. This deficiency was evident for four (Staff #10, #11, #12, and #13) of the five staff reviewed for COVID-19 vaccinations. The findings include:On 11/19/25 at 11:33 AM, the surveyor reviewed the immunization records for five recently hired staff members who provide direct resident care. The staff reviewed included: Staff #10 and #11 (Hired May 2025), Staff #12 (Hired October 2025), and Staff #13 (Hired August 2025).The review revealed that four out of the five staff did not have records documenting their COVID-19 vaccination status.In an interview with the Infection Preventionist (Staff #5) and the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/19/25 at 12:18 PM, they confirmed that the facility staff immunization records are managed by Human Resources (HR).During an interview with the HR Director (Staff #16) on 11/19/25 at 1:14 PM, she stated that the facility did not collect data regarding employees' COVID-19 vaccination status.At 1:34 PM 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 · D2025-11-20 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on a review of the clinical record and staff interviews, it was determined that facility staff failed to properly document the primary decision maker for end-of-life decisions. This deficiency was evident in one (Resident #23) of the five residents reviewed for Advanced Directives during this annual survey.The findings include:The Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form ensures that a patient's wishes to receive or decline care are honored. During the admissions process, a practitioner must review the MOLST form.Decision-making capacity is the ability of an individual to make an informed choice about a specific situation, such as medical treatment.On 11/17/25 at 1:12 PM, a review of Resident #23's medical record revealed that the resident's capacity certification was completed by two physicians on 7/21/25 and 7/22/25. Both physicians documented that the resident was not capable of making and communicating decisions regarding medical care.However, the MOLST dated 8/22/25 indicated that the orders were entered as a result of a discussion with and the informed…
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 before2025-11-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on a review of resident medical records and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care to promote the highest practicable well-being evidenced by inadequate provision/monitoring of care when a resident experienced a voiding issue. This was evident for one (Resident #45) of 14 resident care records reviewed during this annual survey.The findings include:On 11/18/25, at 10:27 AM, the surveyor reviewed system-selected residents' closed records. The review revealed that Resident #45 was discharged from the facility on 9/18/25. A further review of Resident #45's progress notes revealed that the resident reported dark, tea-colored urine on 9/17/25, at 10:30 PM. An additional progress note, written on 9/19/25, at 2:07 AM, stated: Resident left AMA (against medical advice) overnight around 11:30 PM. Reports he/she was not urinating and concerned about the color of urine. [Spouse] was with him/her and took him/her via wheelchair by car…
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 · D2025-11-20 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to 1) label oxygen tubing with date of change to indicate maintenance of the tubing for proper hygiene and safety, and 2) provide necessary respiratory care services for residents by failing to administer oxygen as prescribed. This was evident for three (Resident #23, #46, and #49) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care during this survey.The Findings include: 1) During the screening phase of the survey process on 11/17/25 at 10:30 AM, surveyor observed Resident # 46 and Resident # 49 receiving oxygen through nasal cannula tubing without a label indicating when they were changed. On 11/17/25, record review of resident # 46 noted an order for Oxygen at 2L – 4L/min via nasal cannula every shift for Cardiopulmonary Disorder (COPD). Resident # 49 had an order for Oxygen at 2L/min continuously every shift for Cardiopulmonary Disorder (COPD). On 11/18/25 at 09:30 AM, continued observation was made that the oxygen tubes were not labeled. During an interview with staff # 6, when asked…
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 · D2025-11-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, medical record review, and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the environment of resident care was maintained in a manner that minimized the potential spread of infection, evidenced by an oxygen tube lying on the floor in a resident's room. This was evident for one (Resident #23) of two residents observed for oxygen therapy during this annual survey.The findings include:During the initial tour of the facility on 11/17/25 at approximately 10:00 AM, it was observed that Resident #23's oxygen tank was in the bathroom of his/her room, and the oxygen tube was lying on the floor from the tank to the resident's bed.The second observation, on 11/18/25 at 7:45 AM, noted that Resident #23's oxygen tube was still lying on the floor from the bathroom to the bed.In an interview with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #2) on 11/18/25 at 7:45 AM, she stated that the facility's nurses manage residents' oxygen, including the tank, tube, and humidifier. The surveyor asked to observe Resident #23's oxygen tube. LPN #2 verified…
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 before2024-03-21 · 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 medical record review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received medications in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 resident (#10) out of 17 residents reviewed during the survey. The findings include the following: Review of Resident #10's medical record on 03/20/2024 at 09:30 AM revealed that the resident was discharged from the hospital and admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On the hospital discharge summary, it stated that Resident (#10) was to be given medication, Cefdinir, twice a day for 9 days as a course of antibiotic therapy and Resident (#10) was to begin Cefdinir on 02/21/2024. Review of facility investigation on 03/20/2024 at 11:00 AM revealed that Resident (#10) did not receive Cefdinir until 02/26/2024 and therefore missed 11 doses of this medication. During the interview with the Director of Nursing (#2) on 03/20/24 at 11:15 AM he/she confirmed the medication error and findings in the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that Pharmacy continued to prepackage a medication for Resident (# 29) after the medication was placed on hold. This occurred for 1 of 4 residents observed during the medication pass. The findings include: During observation of a medication pass on 3/20/24 at 9:00am with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) (Staff # 11) revealed that Resident #29 had Lasix 40mg in his/her prepackaged medications dated 3/20/24. Staff #11 stated, Lasix is in the package to be administered however, I know the medication is on hold. Review of the medical record on 3/20/24 at 11:30am revealed the medication was placed on hold on 3/15/24 at 9:30am. During an interview with the DON (Staff #2) on 3/20/24 at 1:30pm, she stated medications are delivered to the facility every 2 days for each resident and the Lasix should not have been in the package with Resident #29's medications. During a follow up interview on 3/20/24 at 2:15pm, the DON stated she spoke with pharmacy and the medication was being removed. All concerns were shared with 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 · D2024-03-21 · 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 reviews and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address a pharmacy recommendation in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #20) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include: On 3/19/24 at 5:07 PM, record review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the following pharmacist recommendation dated 1/25/24, Please consider discontinuing PRN artificial tears and melatonin for no use in > 6 months. Furthermore, the document titled Letter to Physician, noting the response of the pharmacist's Recommendation and Medical Regimen Review (MRR) date of 1/25/24, contained a handwritten response of done. On 3/19/24 at 5:10 PM, record review of physician's orders in the electronic health record (EHR), revealed Resident #20 was ordered Artificial Tears Ophthalmic Ointment 83-15 % (White Petrolatum-Mineral Oil); Instill 1 application in both eyes every 24 hours as needed for Dry Eyes and Melatonin Oral Tablet 3 MG (Melatonin); Give 1 tablet by mouth every 24 hours as needed for Insomnia Give 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 · Dcited before2024-03-21 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. The findings include: An initial tour of the facility Kitchen was completed on 03/18/24 at 08:10 AM with Staff (#8) and the following items were found to be missing an expiration date on the product: 1) Two cans of black-eyed peas 2) Two boxes of classic salt 3) Several spice containers that included ground ginger 4) Two containers of avocado smash During the tour interview on 03/18/24 at 08:25 AM with Staff (#8), he/she stated that the above items did not have an expiration date on them and he/she would check on these items to be sure that they were able to be used and not expired.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-19 · 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 medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the responsible party for Resident (#34) of an increase in medication and obtain consent for that increase. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents selected for review of unnecessary medications during the survey process. The findings include: Medical record review for Resident #34 revealed the resident was seen by psychiatric nurse practitioner on 4/10/19. At that time, it was ordered: increase Lexapro to 15 milligrams by mouth at hour of sleep if OK with family. Lexapro is used to treat depression and anxiety. It works by helping to restore the balance of a certain natural substance (serotonin) in the brain. Further record review revealed the order for the Lexapro was written and initiated for Resident #34; however, the facility staff failed to notify the resident's family of the increase in the Lexapro and obtain consent for the medication increase. Interview with the social worker on 4/19/19 at 11:20 AM revealed the facility staff failed to notify the family of Resident #34 of an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-04-19 · 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
Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to address and notify the physician of results of an abnormal blood sugar level for Resident (#24). This was evident for 1 of 27 residents selected for review during the annual survey process. The findings include: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility with diabetes which requires the body's blood sugar levels to be controlled by medications. A blood sugar level below 60 requires more sugar to be given to the resident and if above 300 requires extra medications to be given to lower the level. On 1/19/19 Resident #24's physician ordered the nursing staff to notify him/her if the blood sugar levels dropped below 60 or greater than 500. On 4/8/19 at 9 PM Resident #24's blood sugar level was documented on the medication administration as 534 and on 4/9/19 at 7 AM the level was 588. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing on 4/19/19 at 10:30 AM confirmed that on 4/8/19 at 9PM, and 4/9/19, the nursing staff did not document on the medication administration record, the treatment…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASH, JEFFREY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/19/2019 |
| CHERBONNIER, ALICE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 11/15/2025 |
| DAILY, SHARON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/28/2025 |
| HOLLYDAY, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/28/2024 |
| HUBBERT, SHELLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/15/2025 |
| LACEY, DARREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 11/15/2025 |
| LANGFORD, ANITA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/19/2021 |
| LEGENHAUSEN, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/28/2024 |
| MEISNER, CECILIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/28/2024 |
| MONIAS, ANNA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2019 |
| O'SHEA, DENNIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| PATTERSON, ANN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/28/2016 |
| PRUITT, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/16/2023 |
| REID, LAWRENCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/16/2023 |
| SCHILPP, JENIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/05/2021 |
| SCHMALJOHN, AMY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/28/2025 |
| TIPTON, GLEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| WHITE, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/19/2021 |
| WILSON, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/28/2025 |
| ZIMMERMAN, KERENSA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 07/19/2021 |
| PRINCE, JAY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 44 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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.
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 215123. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-20, 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.