The Village At Rockville
9701 Veirs Drive, Rockville, MD 20850 · Non profit - Corporation · 160 certified beds · (301) 424-9560 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (36% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Oct 2024
- 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
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (40) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $17,345 in federal fines (most recent 2024-10-11)
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| 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 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 | 22.9% | 20.4% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.1% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.3% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 12.1% | 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 | 3.0% | 2.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 34.1% | 22.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.8% | 16.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.5% | 96.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 5.9% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.4% | 25.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.6% | 13.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.6% | 80.6% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.4% | 21.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.7% | 9.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.13 | 1.33 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.72 | 1.20 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
62.8% 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 547 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.8% 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 273 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 62.8%CMS range 58.8–65.7 | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 8.1–11.7 | 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 | 45.8% | 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 | 44.7% | 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 | 30.8% | 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 | 80.3% | 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 | 90.5% | 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 | 96.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 3.3% | 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 | 5.0%CMS range 3.5–7.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.92 | 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 160 beds and averages 146.5 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 14 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 3.90 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 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 3.71 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.98 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.52 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 below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
40 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 28 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-10-11 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolatedProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) to an unresponsive resident whose active Maryland Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) instructed to Attempt CPR if cardiac and/or pulmonary arrest occurs. This was evident for 1 (#137) of 21 residents reviewed for abuse during the survey. This deficient practice led to an immediate jeopardy for Resident #137 on [DATE]. Following the incident, the facility implemented effective and thorough corrective measures. The facility's plan and action were verified during this survey; therefore, this deficiency was cited as past noncompliance. The date of correction was [DATE]. The findings include: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) refers to any medical intervention used to restore circulatory and respiratory function that has ceased. Maryland MOLST is a portable and enduring form for orders about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other life-sustaining treatments. It makes one's…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2019-10-24 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 observation(s), review of clinical records, facility policies and procedures, and resident and staff interview(s), it was determined that facility staff failed to implement preventive measures to prevent a pressure injury for residents identified at low (mild) or moderate risk for impaired skin integrity. These failures resulted in 3 of 3 residents with facility acquired pressure injuries that were reviewed during the survey (#105, #221 and #11). On 10-21-19 at 4:15 PM, an immediate jeopardy (IJ) for residents at low (mild) to moderate risk for pressure injury was determined. On 10-21-19 at 6:43 PM, the facility staff submitted an IJ removal plan related to residents at low (mild) to moderate risk for pressure injury to the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) which was accepted. On 10-23-19 at 8:25 AM, the IJ related to low (mild) to moderate risk for pressure injury was removed. After removal of the immediacy the deficient practice remained at a scope and severity level H. The findings…
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 · E2026-03-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents were treated in a manner that maintained dignity. This was evident for 2 (Resident #168 and Resident #57) out of 12 residents observed.The findings include:On 02/27/2026 at 12:16 PM, this surveyor observed residents on the 2 Virginia Memory Care floor being served food in the dining area.On 02/27/2026 at 12:33 PM, it was observed that a group of residents were seated together at a dining table. One resident seated at the head of the table (Resident #153) had been served at that time.On 02/27/2026 at 12:39 PM, it was observed that the remaining residents seated at the table (Residents #153, #84, #69, #59, #107, #17, #21, and #93) had received their meal trays and were eating. However, Resident #168 had not yet been served. Resident #168 was observed looking around at the other residents while they were eating.On 02/27/2026 at 12:41 PM, Resident #168 was observed receiving his/her meal tray.On 02/27/2026 at 12:45 PM, this surveyor observed Resident #87 being assisted with lunch at 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 · Ecited before2026-03-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that 1) the environment was in good repair in 3 (Resident rooms #3142, #3145, & #3147) out of 32 Resident rooms and 2) Residential hot water temperature was safe in 5 (#2390, #2391#2220, #2215, and #2212) out of 5 Resident rooms observed for the environment during the recertification and complaint survey. The findings include: 1) During a tour of the facility conducted on 02/25/26 at 9:07 AM, the Surveyor observed Resident room [ROOM NUMBER], #3145, and #3147 with large areas of peeling paint behind the Resident beds. The Surveyor also observed in Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] the nightstand with peeling contact paper on top. During a tour with the Maintenance Director conducted on 03/02/26 at 9:33 AM the Surveyors and Maintenance Director observed Resident room # 3142, #3145, and #3147 peeling paint on the walls behind the Resident beds and peeling contact paper on top of the nightstand in Resident room [ROOM NUMBER].…
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 before2026-03-03 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure food items were stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This was identified during the kitchen facility task conducted as part of the annual/complaint survey.The findings include:On 02/25/2026 at 8:41 AM, this surveyor observed items in the refrigerator of the facility's kitchen that were labeled for discard but had not been removed, including:Salad bar cut vegetables labeled Discard by 02/23/2026 07:27 PM.Cut green and red peppers wrapped in plastic wrap with no label or date.On 02/25/2026 at 9:02 AM, this surveyor observed items in the deep freezer that were labeled for discard or were unlabeled and undated, including:A tray of carrots labeled Veg with a discard date of 02/15.Pieces of naan bread in an opened bag with no label or date.Red velvet iced sheet cake labeled Discard 02/20.A bag of meatballs (unopened) with no label or date.A bag of chicken (opened) labeled Good thru 02/23.An additional unopened bag of chicken with no label or date.A bag 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 · Dcited before2026-03-03 · 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 reviews and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate a resident's allegation of abuse. This was evident for 2 (Resident #74 and Resident # 140) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse during the annual recertification and complaint survey. The findings include:1) On 03/02/2026 at 11:12 AM, a review of the initial report form for the facility reported incident #357580 regarding Resident #74 submitted on 04/23/2025, for the injury of unknown origin, the steps listed by the facility immediately to ensure residents are protected did not list resident interviews or assessments. The action items listed were: investigation initiated; family notified; physician notified; medical director notified and ombudsman notified. On 03/02/2026 at 11:14 AM, a review of the facility's investigation for abuse revealed no resident interviews or assessments were located within the facility's investigation file. However, there were 8 documented staff interviews.On 03/03/2026 at 11:15 AM, A review of the follow up investigation report form under the steps…
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 · D2026-03-03 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 reviews and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days of the resident's disenrollment in hospice services. This was evident for 1 (Resident #43) out of 2 residents reviewed during recertification survey process. The findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) is a federally mandated assessment tool used by nursing home staff to gather information on each Resident's strengths and needs. Information collected on the MDS drives Resident care planning decisions. The nursing home should complete a Significant Change in Status MDS assessment within 14 days of a major decline or improvement in a resident's status after the determination that a significant change has occurred.On 2/27/2026 at 1:48 PM, review of Resident #43's electronic medical record revealed that the resident was admitted to [NAME] Hospice Services on 12/23/2023.On 03/01/2026 at 11:15 AM, record review of the resident's medical record…
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 before2026-03-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 interviews and record reviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a Resident care plan was developed. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #166) out of 32 Resident care plans reviewed during the recertification and complaint survey.The findings include: A review of complaint #2607648 submitted to the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) was conducted on 02/27/26 at 8:00 AM. The complainant reported that the facility failed to provide accommodations for Resident #166. During a phone interview conducted on 02/27/26 at 8:46 AM, the complainant reported that Resident #166 was blind and that the facility failed to have interventions in place to accommodate the Resident's needs. Category 4 blindness is a severe classification of vision impairment defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as having a best-corrected visual acuity worse than (roughly) but still retaining light perception. It often includes severe visual field restrictions (less than), indicating very limited functional vision compared to total blindness.During a review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-03 · 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 record reviews and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to provide services that met professional standards of practice. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #166) out of 1 Resident reviewed for professional standards of practice during the recertification and complaint survey. The findings include: 1)A review of complaint #2607648 submitted to the Office of Health Care Quality (OHCQ) was conducted on 02/27/26 at 8:00 AM. The complainant reported that the facility failed to hold a blood pressure medication and notify the physician when the Resident blood pressure was low. Systolic blood pressure, the top number in a reading (e.g., the 120 in 120/80 mmHg), measures the maximum pressure in your arteries when your heart muscle contracts and pumps blood. It indicates how hard your heart is working to pump blood to the rest of the body with each beat.A review of Resident #166's Medication Administration Record (MAR) conducted on 03/02/26 at 8:19 AM showed the following orders: Amlodipine Besylate Oral Tablet 10 mg (milligram) (Amlodipine Besylate). Give…
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 · D2026-03-03 · 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 record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident received care that met acceptable standards of quality. This was evident for 1 (Resident #6) out of 1 resident reviewed during review of a facility reported incident.The findings include: On 03/02/2026 at 9:43 AM, a record review was conducted of the investigation file related to a facility reported incident. The facility reported incident involved an allegation of abuse and neglect against Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA) #16 toward Resident #6, which reportedly occurred on 03/04/2025 and 03/05/2025.During review of the investigation file, an interview with Resident #6's Patient Decision Aide (PDA), conducted on 03/11/2025, was reviewed. The PDA reported that she worked with Resident #6 on 03/04/2025 and 03/05/2025 and confirmed that GNA #16 was also providing care to Resident #6 during that time. From the interview questions, the PDA confirms that she observed GNA #16 slamming cabinet doors in the resident's room, moving quickly while opening and closing doors, and had left…
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 before2026-03-03 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 reviews and interviews it was determined the facility staff failed to follow procedures for Residents with a pressure ulcer. This was evident for 2 (#7 & #122) out of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care during the recertification survey. The findings include:A pressure ulcer, also known as a bed sore or decubitus ulcer, is a localized area of skin damage that develops when prolonged pressure or shear forces disrupt blood flow to the tissues resulting in damage to the underlying tissue. Pressure ulcers are staged based on their severity from Stage I (area of persistent redness), Stage II (superficial loss of skin such as an abrasion, blister, or shallow crater), Stage III (full-thickness skin loss involving damage to subcutaneous tissue presenting as a deep crater) or Stage IV (full thickness skin loss with extensive damage to muscle, bone or tendon). 1. During a review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #7 on 3/03/26 at 8:07 AM it was revealed that the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-03 · 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 observations, record reviews and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to keep residents free from injury. This was evident for 1 (Resident #10) of 1 resident reviewed for injuries during the annual recertification survey. The findings include:02/25/2026 at 9:10 AM, Resident #10 was observed to have a dressing in place on their left lower leg that was clean, dry, and intact. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) is a set of assessment screening items employed as part of a standardized, reproducible, and comprehensive assessment process that ensures each resident's individual needs are identified and care is planned based on these individualized needs.Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS): A screen used to assist with identifying a resident's current cognition. The BIMS score ranges from 00 to 15. A score of 13-15 indicates cognitively intact, 8-12 indicates moderately impaired and 00-07 indicates severe cognitive impact. Care plans provide direction for individualized care of the resident. A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It…
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 28 citations
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-03 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a Resident's enteral feeding was labeled. This was found to be evident for 1 (Resident #34) out of 1 Resident observed for tube feeding during the recertification and complaint survey. The findings include: Enteral feeding, or tube feeding, delivers liquid nutrition directly into the stomach or small intestine via a tube for individuals with a functioning gut who cannot consume enough calories orally. It is used for short-term (<4-6 weeks, e.g., nasogastric) or long-term support (e.g., G-tube/PEG) to treat malnutrition, swallowing difficulties, or critical illness.A gastrostomy tube (G-tube) is a medical device inserted through the abdomen into the stomach to deliver nutrition, fluids, and medication directly, bypassing the mouth and esophagus. It is used for individuals, often children, with swallowing difficulties, chronic illness, or failure to gain weight.During an observation conducted on 02/25/2026 at 9:45 AM, the Surveyor observed Resident #34 in bed asleep, head of the bed…
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 before2026-03-03 · 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 and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff practiced infection control. This was evident for 4 (Residents #138, #3, #65 and #131) out of 6 Residents observed for infection control during the recertification survey.The findings include: 1) Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) are infection control measures in nursing homes requiring staff to wear gowns and gloves during high-contact care for residents at high risk of spreading multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs). They prevent transmission of resistant bacteria like C. auris or MRSA, especially for those with wounds or medical devices. On 02/25/2026 at 9:32 AM The Surveyor observed a sign on the Resident's entry door for Enhance Barrier Precaution (EBP). The Surveyor entered the Resident's room and observed GNA/PDA #30 cleaning Resident #138's face with a white cloth. The GNA/PDA was not wearing gloves and a gown while she provided high contact care. During an interview GNA/PDA #30 stated that she was familiar with EBP that was why she washed her hands before and after providing…
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 · F2024-10-11 · tag F0941 — widespreadDevelop, implement, and/or maintain an effective training program that includes effective communications for direct care staff members.
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 ensure that direct care staff had mandatory communication training. This was evident for 8 staff (#15, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23), of 8 staff training records reviewed for communication training during the extended survey portion of the recertification survey. The findings include: On 10/08/24 at 10:34 AM, eight randomly selected employee files were requested as part of the staffing facility task of the standard survey, and included Geriatric Nursing Assistants, Licensed Practical Nurses, and a Registered Nurse. On 10/09/24 at 3:53 PM, the extended survey task was triggered due to an Immediate Jeopardy situation determined during the standard survey. As a result, the survey team determined the need to review the randomly selected direct care staff for evidence of communication training. On 10/10/24 at 9:10 AM, a record review revealed a lack of evidence of communication training for GNA #15, GNA #17, GNA #18, GNA #19, GNA #20, and LPN #21, LPN #22, and RN #23. On 10/11/24 at 11:55 AM, 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 · E2024-10-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 1) report allegations of abuse within two hours, and 2) identify and report potential abuse to the administrator. This was evident for 1) four facility reported incidents (FRIs) (#MD00202347, #MD00198954, #MD00181634, MD00187540) of seventeen FRIs, and 2) one (Resident #33) of twenty-one residents reviewed for potential abuse. The findings include: 1a) On 10/08/24 at 11:55 AM, a review of the facility reported incident #MD00202347 revealed that Resident #36's responsible representative made the facility aware of an allegation that female residents on the second floor were being compromised at night. Staff were made aware of the allegation on 2/06/24 at 3:15 PM, but failed to report the allegation to the Office of Healthcare Quality until 2/07/24 at 6:07 PM. On 10/09/24 at 8:24 AM, the surveyor reviewed the concern with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding the failure to report an allegation of abuse within 2 hours. 1b) On 10/09/24 at 9:03 AM, a review of the facility self reported incident…
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 · E2024-10-11 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to obtain informed consent prior to the initiation of bed rails. This was evident for 2 (Resident #23 and #120) of 4 residents reviewed for physical restraints. The findings include: Bedrails or side rails are adjustable bars that attach to the bed. They vary in size, including full, half, and quarter lengths depending on their intended purpose. They can be used to prevent falls, help assist residents with movement, and provide a feeling of security. Bed rails also have potential risks associated with them. The facility should obtain a signed consent form before the use of bedrails. 1) On 10/02/24 at 9:59 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #120 in bed with two bed rails up on either side of the top end of the bed. On 10/03/24 at 11:33 AM, a review of Resident #120's medical record failed to reveal a consent form for the bed rail use. On 10/09/24 at 7:47 AM during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON explained that the facility used enabler quarter…
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 · E2024-10-11 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure 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 interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the pharmacists recommendations regarding medications irregularities were communicated to the resident's physician. This was evident for three residents (Resident #51, # 111, and #117) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications during a survey. The findings include: 1) On 10/04/24 at 9:30 AM, Resident #51's medical records were reviewed. The review revealed that Resident #51 was a long-term resident at the facility and was receiving multiple medications. Further review revealed that a pharmacist reviewed Resident #51's medications for irregularities every month from November 2023 through September 2024. On 10/04/24 at 10:09 AM, a review of progress notes revealed a pharmacy note, dated 11/06/23, that indicated Resident #51's medications were reviewed and included that statement See report for any noted irregularities and or recommendations. On 10/04/24 at 12:20 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed and reported that she was unable to provide the 11/06/23 pharmacy report…
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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 respond timely when residents called for assistance. This was evident for 1 complaint (#MD00206835) of 6 complaints reviewed during the recertification survey. The findings include: On 10/08/24 at 3:00 PM, a review of complaint #MD00206835 was conducted. It alleged that staff were slow to answer Resident #152's call bell on 11/20/23, 11/21/23, 11/25/23, 11/26/23, and 12/04/23. On 10/11/24 at 10:15 AM - the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was asked to provide the call bell response log for Resident #125 for the days of concern. A review of those records revealed that on 11/20/23, 11/21/23, 11/25/23, 11/26/23, and 12/04/23, Resident #152's call bell went unanswered for 42 minutes or longer at least once. On 11/20/23, 11/25/23, and 12/04/23, this occurred twice. On 10/11/24 at 10:20 AM in an interview with Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA #13), she described how the call bell system worked. She said that when the resident pressed their call device, the GNAs received a phone notification on an app. 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 · D2024-10-11 · 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 record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a primary care provider was notified of a lab result. This was evident for 1 (Resident #120) of 3 residents reviewed for urinary tract infections. The findings include: On 10/02/24 at 1:42 PM, review of Resident #120's electronic medical record revealed a urine culture and sensitivity result from the lab, dated 9/20/24 at 12:00 PM, which indicated the urine specimen was spilled in transit and that Registered Nurse, Staff #14 was informed. On 10/08/24 at 9:19 AM, an interview with the second floor Registered Nurse Care Coach/Unit Manager (Staff #1) revealed that the responsibility of the nurse with lab results is to review and notify the primary care provider of the results. Further interview revealed the nurse should document the communication with the provider of the result and the provider response. Further review of Resident #120's medical record failed to reveal any documentation to indicate that the urine was spilled in transit was communicated to a primary care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-11 · 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 1b) On 10/04/24 at 12:30 PM, a random observation in the Potomac hallway bathroom, located across from the 2nd-floor dining room, revealed a hole in the wall opposite the toilet. Further observation revealed that the hole in the wall was in the shape of the bathroom door's handle. The hole was approximately 7 inches long, and the widest portion was 3- 1/2 inches. Continued observation revealed that the hole was stuffed with toilet paper. A second observation of the same Potomac Hall bathroom on 10/10/24 at 12:35 PM, revealed no change in the hole in the wall. On 10/10/24 at 1:25 PM, the Maintenance Director (Staff #12) and surveyor made a joint observation of the hole in the wall of the Potomac hallway bathroom. The hole in the wall was filled with toilet paper. Staff # 12 stated that he was unaware that the hole was there and said that it would be repaired immediately. On 10/10/24 at 4:20 PM, in an interview with Staff #12 and the Nursing Home Administrator, they reported that repair of the hole in the wall was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of medical records and facility reported incident investigation documentation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to keep a resident free from abuse. This was found to be evident for one (Resident #33) of twenty-one residents reviewed for potential abuse. The findings include: Review of Resident #33's medical record revealed the resident required staff assistance with transfers from bed to wheelchair and back to bed. Review of a facility reported incident (MD00189254) revealed that, on 2/19/23 the geriatric nursing assistant (GNA Staff #15) refused to assist the resident back to bed when the resident requested assistance. Review of an interview with Resident #33, dated 2/21/23, revealed that, on 2/19/23, the resident was in the dining room for lunch. After lunch the resident asked GNA #15 to take them back to their room. The GNA said no, and indicated that, when she (the GNA) was ready she would take the resident back. The resident then told the GNA that his/her legs hurt and that he/she wanted to go back to his/her room. The GNA again refused…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-11 · 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 review of facility reported incident investigations and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse. This was evident for 1 (#138 ) of 21 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: On 10/10/24 9:40 AM, a review of facility reported incident, MD00187540 was conducted. The facility's initial self-report documented that, on 1/9/23, a family member of Resident #138's reported to a supervisor that Resident #138 alleged s/he was abused and retaliated against by staff assigned to the resident. Review of the documents included with the facility's investigation revealed documentation of interviews that were conducted with staff members assigned to the resident during the time frame the alleged abuse was reported to have occurred, and interviews conducted with some residents. However, continued review of the facility's investigation failed to reveal documentation of the interview conducted with the family member who reported Resident #138 had an allegation of abuse. In addition, there was no documentation in 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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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 staff interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to include the resident care plan with the required documentation during a transfer. This was evident for 1 (Resident #45) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization. The findings include: On 10/03/24 at 10:41 AM, record review revealed that Resident #45 was hospitalized on [DATE] and 4/22/24. On 10/07/24 at 12:33 PM, an interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #28) and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #29) revealed that the nurses use a transfer checklist to ensure required documents are sent with the resident upon a transfer. Review of the transfer form checklist provided to the surveyor during the interview failed to reveal indication of a care plan. Further interview with LPN #28) and LPN #29 revealed that they would not send the residents care plan upon transfer. On 10/07/24 at 1:26 PM in an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she said that the care plan should be sent with the residents upon transfer. 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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to provide written notification of transfer to the resident and resident representative. This was evident for two residents (Resident #45, #98) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization. The findings include: 1) On 10/03/24 at 10:41 AM, a review of Resident #45's medical record revealed she/he was hospitalized on [DATE] and 4/22/24. Further review of Resident #45's electronic medical record and paper chart on 10/03/24 at 10:45 AM, failed to reveal a that a written transfer form was provided to the resident and resident representative for the 2/2/24 and 4/22/24 hospitalizations. On 10/07/24 at 1:13 PM in an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), she said that the hospital transfer notice forms were typically not given to the resident, but the resident representative would verbally be told of the transfer. If the responsible representative was local and wanted a copy, then the facility would send a copy, but 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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility failed to orient, prepare, and document a resident's transfer. This was evident for two (Resident #45, #98) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization. The findings include: 1) On 10/03/24 at 10:41 AM, a review of Resident #45's medical record revealed that he/she was hospitalized on [DATE] and 4/22/24. On 10/09/24 at 8:24 AM, in an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she said that when a resident was sent to the hospital, the documentation of the residents transfer was written in the progress notes. On 10/09/24 at 8:24 AM, further interview with the DON on 10/09/24 at 8:24 AM revealed that the facility also used a transfer form where they documented the reason for the residents transfer and that the resident representative was notified of the transfer. On 10/09/24 at 8:25 AM, the surveyor reviewed progress notes around the two dates of hospitalization and the transfer form completed for Resident #45's hospital transfers…
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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident representative in writing of the bed-hold policy upon transfer of the resident to an acute care facility. This was evident for 2 (#98, #45 ) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization. The findings include: On 10/7/24 at 12:35 PM, a review of Resident #98's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed documentation that Resident #98 was transferred to an acute care facility on 9/29/24. In an SBAR (acronym for situation, background, assessment, recommendation; used to facilitate communication between health care members), on 9/29/24 at 9:55 AM, the nurse documented that Resident #98 had a change in condition, that the resident was having difficulty breathing, the resident was alert and responsive, the physician was notified, and ordered the resident transferred to the emergency room for respiratory distress. In an admission note on 10/2/24 at 4:08 PM, the admissions manager documented Resident #98's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 record review and staff interview, it was determined that facility staff failed to develop and implement comprehensive resident centered care plan plans for residents. This was evident for 1) one (#118) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, and 2) one (Resident #120) of 3 residents reviewed for communication during the recertification survey. The findings include: A care plan is a guide that addresses the unique needs of each resident. It is used to plan, assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the resident's care. Staff utilize care plans to provide resident centered care that includes support, services, and resources to address the needs of a resident. 1) Psychosis is a condition that causes a person to lose touch with reality, making it difficult to distinguish what is real and what is not. It is a term used to describe a group of symptoms, rather than a diagnosis. Symptoms include hallucinations, delusions (false beliefs) disorganized thinking or speaking; difficulty trusting others, and withdrawing from others. On 10/3/24 at 2:02 PM, a 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 · Dcited before2024-10-11 · 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 observation, interview and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that only licensed staff fed residents. This was evident for 1 resident (Resident #39) of 32 residents observed during the recertification survey. The findings include: On 10/02/24 at 12:47 PM, an observation of the 2nd floor Potomac Unit dining room was conducted. Resident #39 was sitting in a wheelchair at a table with 3 other residents. An unidentified female without a name badge stood next to Resident #39, took a spoonful of food from the resident's tray and placed it in the resident's mouth, then walked away. The unidentified female returned at 12:53 PM, fed the resident one bite and walked away. The same female returned at 12:55 PM, fed the resident another bite, and walked away again. Multiple other facility staff were present in the dining area and in the hallways during this time. On 10/02/24 at 12:58 PM, an interview was conducted with Geriatric Nursing Assistant (GNA #3) who was in the hallway next to the dining room. When asked, GNA #3 reported that the female who fed…
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 · D2024-10-11 · 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
Based on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to keep a resident's drug regimen free from unnecessary drugs by failing to ensure orders had adequate parameters in place to indicate when to administer as needed medications for constipation. This was evident for 1 (#118) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include: On 10/4/24 at 10:10 AM, a review of Resident #118's medical record was conducted. Review of Resident #118's September MAR revealed 3 medications to be administered as needed for constipation with no clear indication of when to give which one, and 2 of these orders were for the same medication. There was a 9/10/24 order for lactulose oral solution (laxative) by mouth every 12 hours as needed for constipation, a 9/10/24 order for Miralax Powder (Polyethylene Glycol) (laxative)17 GM (grams) by mouth every 24 hours as needed for constipation once a day as needed for no BM (bowel movement), and there was a 9/10/24 order for Polyethylene Glycol Powder, 17 GM by mouth every 24 hours as needed for…
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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on medical record review and staff interview, It was determined that the facility failed to ensure that a resident's medication regimen was free from an unnecessary psychotropic medication by 1) failing to adequately monitor a resident for behavior, side effects or adverse consequences related to psychotropic medication use. This was evident for 1 (118) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include On 10/3/24 at 2:02 PM, a review of Resident #118's medical record was conducted and revealed the resident was admitted to the facility in early September 2024 following an acute hospitalization. Review of the resident's admission assessment, with an assessment reference date of 9/14/24, documented Resident #118 had moderate cognitive impairment, medically complex conditions, and multiple medical diagnoses which included dementia, anxiety disorder, and depression. The assessment also documented that Resident #118 was taking an antipsychotic, and an antidepressant, and received antipsychotics on a routine basis. Review of Resident #118's September 2024…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to properly store food items to prevent cross contamination. This was evident for two random observations of the facility's freezers and refrigerators. The findings include: On 10/2/24 at 9:09 AM, the surveyor toured the main kitchen with the Dining Services Supervisor (Staff #33). During the observation of the walk-in freezer, the surveyor noticed what appeared to be a sausage wrapped in plastic on the shelf. This item lacked a label or date. Staff #33 removed the item from the freezer at the time of the observation. On 10/4/24 at 2:43 PM, during an observation of the second-floor kitchen in the Maryland unit, the surveyor observed one metal container with red sauce in it, the container did not have a cover or a label. A second metal container was observed with an open bag of sour cream that was 3/4th full and a serving scoop was noted to be sitting in the sour cream. Staff # 35, a dining server, was then shown the containers and identified the red sauce as salsa and reported it was served with tacos…
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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to keep complete and accurate medical records by failing to void a residents MOLST form when an updated MOLST form was completed. This was evident for 3 (#114, #118, #10) of 11 residents reviewed for advanced directives. The findings include: Maryland Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) is a medical order form covering options for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and other life-sustaining treatments. The medical orders are based on a patient's wishes about medical treatments. It is valid in all healthcare facilities and programs throughout Maryland. Section 1 includes orders to Attempt CPR or No CPR. Included in the No CPR section are three options: A-1 Intubate; A-2 Do Not Intubate but comprehensive efforts may include limited ventilatory support by CPAP or BiPAP; or Option B No CPR, Palliative and Supportive Care, do not intubate or use CPAP or BiPAP. The MOLST form shall be voided and a new MOLST…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to use appropriate infection control practices. This was evident for one (Resident #125) of two residents reviewed for urinary catheter use. The findings include: On 10/3/24, at 11:00 AM, a review of the records showed that Resident #125 had an order for an indwelling Foley catheter, which is used to drain urine from the bladder into a collection bag. On 10/3/24 at 11:09 AM, the surveyor observed Resident #125 lying in bed. The foley catheter bag was observed lying flat on the floor. On 10/3/24 at 11:12 AM, surveyor and the nurse (Staff #25), entered Resident #125's room, and the nurse confirmed the observation of the resident's Foley catheter bag lying flat on the floor. Staff #25 acknowledged that the Foley catheter bag should not be in contact with the floor. She then raised the bed to ensure that the catheter was no longer touching the floor and mentioned that someone had most likely lowered the bed to its lowest position.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-11 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 ensure that residents or their representatives were educated on the risks and benefits of pneumonia vaccinations. This was evident for 2 (#28, #129) of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations during the survey. The findings include: 1) Record review on 10/10/24, at approximately 8:16 AM, of Resident #28's immunization record noted that consent refused. The continued review contained a vaccination consent form, signed on 6/17/24, and documented that I do not give permission for any vaccines to be administered. Further review failed to show documentation that Resident #28 and his/her representative were fully informed of the health benefits and risks of receiving vaccinations. 2) Record review for Resident #129 showed that s/he was admitted to the facility in August 2024. Further review revealed that Resident #129's representative refused a pneumococcal vaccination on 8/26/24. However, the review failed to show that education was provided on the risks and benefits of vaccination. In an interview 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 · E2019-10-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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 the clinical record, it was determined that the facility staff failed to revise the plan of care to reflect the preventive measures for pressure injury in residents utilizing splints and/or braces. This finding was evident for 2 of 2 residents utilizing splints/braces that were reviewed during the survey. ( #99 and #221). The findings include: 1. Resident #99 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and on 08-28-19 the facility staff obtained a physician's order for a back brace to be worn every day when the resident was out of bed. Review of the plan of care for resident #99 on 10-21-19 revealed a care plan for altered skin integrity related to skin tears. The facility staff failed to revise the care plan to reflect the potential for pressure injury related to daily use of the back brace until 10-22-19. On 10-22-19 the care plan was revised to reflect the potential for pressure injury related to immobility and the use of the back brace. Surveyor interview with DON on 10-21-19 at 1:30 PM…
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 before2019-10-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 facility staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet a resident's clinical and psychological needs. This finding was evident for 2 of 45 residents reviewed during the survey. (#70, #90) The finding includes: 1. On 10-16-19 at 10:30 AM, surveyor review of resident #70's medication administration record (MAR) revealed that resident #70 was taking multiple medications including, but not limited to, antidepressant medications (medications used to treat major depressive disorders). Further review of the physician order sheet (POS) revealed that the medication was ordered on July 24th, 2019. Additional record review revealed a psychiatrist documentation in August, September and October 2019, indicated the rational/diagnosis for the medication. However, there was no evidence that the facility staff initiated a care plan to address resident #70's antidepressant medication usage. Neither were there interventions put in place to address the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-24 · 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 review of the clinical record and surveyor observation, it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure the accurate acquiring/receiving of medication from an authorized source. This finding was evident for 1 of 32 records reviewed during the initial pool. (#92) The findings include: On 10-15-19 at 11:30 AM, review of the clinical record for resident #92 revealed physician's orders, dated 10-10-19 at 2:13 PM, for Aranesp injection. (medication used to treat anemia) with instructions family supplied. The physician's order did not provide instructions on holding the medication if the hemoglobin was greater than or equal to a certain level. On 10-15-19 at 2:37 PM, surveyor observed a Giant grocery store bag in the medication refrigerator which contained a syringe labeled with resident #92's name. The charge nurse of the 3 Virginia nursing unit identified the medication as the family supplied Aranesp, which facility staff were administering to the resident. The 3 Virginia charge nurse stated that, to her knowledge, the syringe had not been verified (by the pharmacy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-10-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on surveyor observation and facility staff interviews, it was determined that the facility staff failed to label drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards. This was evident for 1 of 5 medication storage rooms selected for medication storage inspection during the survey. (3 Maryland nursing unit) The findings include: On 10-17-19 at 10:31 AM, surveyor observed a vial of tuberculosis(TB) skin test in the refrigerator with an open date marked 09-02-19. Based on facility practice and professional standards the vial should have been discarded 30 days after it was initially opened. (10-02-19). In addition, there was an open vial of pneumonia vaccine with no open or discard date on it. Finally, surveyor observation of phlebotomy tubes (used to draw blood for lab testing) were checked for expiration dates. There were 10 blue top tubes with expiration date 06-30-2019 and 6 yellow top tubes with expiration date 09-30-19. Upon surveyor intervention, the 3 Maryland charge nurse discarded the expired tubes. On 10-17-19 at 11:31 AM, interview with director of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2019-10-24 · tag F0655 — patternCreate 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on surveyor review of clinical records and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to develop and implement a complete baseline care plan within 48 hours of a resident's admission. This finding was evident for 1of 5 residents selected for review of the unnecessary meds care area.(#71) The findings include: On 10-16-19 at 12 PM, review of resident #71's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with physician orders for the medications Eliquis (a blood thinner), Atorvastatin (a medication used to treat an abnormally high concentration of lipids or fats in the blood), and Famotidine (a medication used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease). There was no evidence of a baseline care plan addressing the use of these medications or the diagnoses associated with their use. On 10-16-19 at 01:50 PM, interview with the director of nursing revealed no additional information.
“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
$17,345 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $17,345 — penalty dated 2024-10-11
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NATIONAL LUTHERAN COMMUNITIES & SERVICES — 2 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes:
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 1 home this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CASNER, DONNA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/25/2018 |
| HREBEN, KYLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 04/30/2018 |
| BRADSHAW, LAWRENCE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/01/2009 |
| MAZZA, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/12/2018 |
| WALTERS, CYNTHIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 10/03/2016 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.
This home reported $2.7M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 215125. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-03, 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.