Montgomery Village Care Center

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

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.

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.

60.0% 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 625 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 75.0% 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 232 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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.

Staffing

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 3.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.95 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.95 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 3.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.73 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.06 to 0.68 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 23% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 5 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

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.

39 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 29 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0660 — isolated
  Plan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
  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 resident medical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to implement an effective discharge process that adequately prepared Resident # 394 for transition to post-discharge care. This was evidenced by the failure to: 1) develop a discharge care plan for Resident # 394, 2) coordinate the referral to an outside provider for the transition of care, 3) order the recommended medical equipment and 4) provide complete and adequate discharge instructions for Resident # 394. This was evident for 1 (Resident #394) of 39 residents reviewed during the annual survey. The findings include: On 4/14/2025 at 10:10 AM, the Surveyor reviewed a complaint, MD00206515, submitted to the Office of Health Care Quality. The facility allegedly failed to adequately coordinate the discharge of Resident #394 from the facility. A record review was conducted for Resident # 394. He/She was admitted to this facility on 5/3/2024 from the hospital due to multiple fractures post fall…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-04-16 · tag F0661 — isolated
  Ensure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
  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 interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility staff failed to provide a resident with a completed discharge summary upon discharge. This was found to be evident for 1 of 39 residents (Resident #335) that were reviewed during the recertification survey. The findings include: On 4/14/2025 at 8:42 AM, the Director of Social Services for the facility was interviewed by surveyors. The Director stated that social services is responsible for arranging home health referrals and discharge paperwork will have contact information for any post facility agencies continuing care in the community. He/She also stated that residents and family members are made aware of any home health agencies that have been sent referrals by the facility. Resident #335's medical record was reviewed on 4/15/2025 at 8:25 AM. Record review revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for short term rehabilitation after an acute care stay at a hospital due to a fall with fracture. 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-01-28 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor 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 surveyor review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to implement a resident's wishes as stated in an advance directive, and failed to verify the authority of a medical decision maker on a Maryland Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining (MOLST) form. This finding was evident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for advance directive care area (Resident #72). The findings include: A MOLST is a portable and enduring medical order form covering options for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other life-sustaining treatments. Advance directive is a written instruction, such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care, recognized under State law (whether statutory or as recognized by the courts of the State), relating to the provision of health care when the individual is incapacitated. On 01-25-2021, a review of Resident #72's clinical record revealed the resident had an advance medical directive which stated that the resident required to be certified incompetent for making informed medical decisions before Resident…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-01-28 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on medical record review, resident interview and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for residents. This finding was evident for 1 of 26 residents reviewed during survey ( Resident #88). The findings include: On 01-25-2021 at 10:00 AM, surveyor interview with Resident #88 revealed the resident received a lab report on 12-11-2020 which had the wrong room number. On 01-26-2021 review or Resident #88's clinical record revealed her/his lab report on 12-11-2020 had her name and date of birth correct but had wrong room number. On 01-27-2021 at 5:00 PM unit manager accompanied by facility administrator came to surveyor and provided evidence that the resident had blood draw order on 12-11-2020. They said the nurse who filled out the lab requisition form might have entered wrong room number on the form. On 01-28-2021 at 3:00 PM, an interview with DON revealed no additional information.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-04-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on surveyor review of the clinical record and interviews with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop comprehensive plans of care for the residents. This finding was evident for 5 of 37 residents selected for review during the survey (#35, #70, #268, #1 & #110). The findings include: 1. On 04-23-19 at 12:45 PM and 04-24-19 at 9 AM, surveyor observation revealed a hand splint noted on resident #35's nightstand. Interview of the resident revealed that the facility staff applied the left hand splint daily. On 04-29-19, review of the clinical record revealed an order, written on 11-24-18, to wear the left hand splint daily from 9 AM to 12 PM. In addition, the application schedule of the left hand splint was written on the Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA)'s tasks. Further review revealed the quarterly MDS assessment was done on 02-01-19. A care plan meeting was held with the resident on the same day. However, there was no evidence that a care plan related to contracture management was developed. On 04-29-19 at 2 PM, interview 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2019-04-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
  Develop 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 surveyor observations, record review, interviews with residents, resident representatives and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to invite residents/representatives to care plan meetings, failed to provide care plan meetings that were comprised of a comprehensive interdisciplinary team, and failed to revise care plans as necessary. This was evident for 12 of 37 residents selected for review during this survey (#4, #10, #16, #23, #54,# 68, #70, #77, #86, #95, #103, & #114) . The findings include: 1a. On 04-24-19 at 09:28 AM, surveyor interview with resident #77 revealed that that he/she had not been invited to participate in a care plan meeting with the facility staff to discuss his/her plan of care. On 04-24-19 at 12 PM, surveyor interview with the fourth floor unit manager revealed that the interdisciplinary team uses a care plan meeting sign-in sheet to document the meeting and who was in attendance. There was no documented evidence in resident #77's record that the resident…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-04-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
  Provide 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 surveyor record review and facility staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to follow physicians' orders. This was evident for 3 of 37 residents reviewed during this survey (#21, #4 & #1) . The findings include: 1a. On 04-29-19, review of resident #21's clinical record revealed a new order, written on 01-30-19, to administer Melatonin for sleep. However, there was no evidence that the Melatonin was given on 01-31-19 as ordered. b. Further review of the physician order, dated 01-31-19, revealed that a diabetic medication, Glipizide 5 mg, was prescribed for resident #21 daily at 6 AM. However, there was no evidence that the diabetic medication was given on 02-01-19. Based on the facility's medication inventory report, Glipizide 5 mg was available on 02-01-19. On 04-29-19 at 2 PM, interview with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing revealed no additional information. 2a. On 04-24-19, review of resident #4's clinical record revealed that the attending physician ordered Midodrine 5 mg be administered three times a day for hypotension upon…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-04-29 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — pattern
  Set up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on surveyor review of facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program, review of previous Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2567 forms and interviews with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing, it was determined that the facility's QAPI committee failed to monitor the corrective actions related to advance directives and care plan revisions. The findings include: On 04-29-19, surveyor review of the CMS 2567 form revealed that a deficiency related to advance directives was identified on 10-17-18 during a complaint survey. In addition, a deficiency related to care plan revision was identified on 11-18-19 during another complaint survey. Further review of the facility's plan of correction revealed the alleged date of compliance was 01-04-19 for advance directives and care plan revisions. The Director of Nursing (DON) would audit weekly for 2 months and then monthly for 2 months to ensure the Maryland Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form, advance directives and face sheets are complete and accurate. In addition, the DON…

  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.

  Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2019-04-29 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on surveyor observations, record review, and interviews with residents and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to allow a resident the ability to choose whether to participate in group activities or eat in the dining room. This was evident for 1 of 3 residents selected for review of the choices care area during the survey (#77). The findings include: On 04-23-19 at 04:16 PM, surveyor observation revealed an isolation cart in front of resident #77's room and instructions to see the nurse prior to entering the room. On 04-25-19, review of resident #77's clinical record revealed a physician's order written on 04-22-19 for contact isolation due to a urinary tract infection. On 04-25-19 at 01:05 PM, interview with resident #77 revealed that he/she would like to leave their room to participate in group activities and eat meals in the dining room but he/she has not been allowed to leave their room since they were put on contact isolation precautions. Surveyor observation revealed the resident was lying in bed with a Foley catheter (a flexible tube that 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-04-29 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on surveyor record reviews, interviews with the residents, resident representatives and facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to recognize the inconsistency between the resident's physician order and the resident's Maryland Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form. This finding was evident for 2 of 6 residents selected for the advanced directive review during this survey (#16 and #35). The findings include: 1. On 04-29-19, surveyor review of resident #16's MOLST form, dated 07-25-11, revealed that the resident's representative selected the option to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if a cardiac and/or pulmonary arrest occurs. However, further review of resident #16's monthly physician orders for 01-01-19 and 02-01-19 signed by the physician on 02-18-19, and monthly physician orders for 03-01-19 signed by the physician on 03-05-19, revealed that an order was written for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) if a cardiac and/or pulmonary arrest occurs, which 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $8.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 36% 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