Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around May 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of August 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Future Care Homewood during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Meals Served Below Required Temperatures: Multiple residents reported that food was cold, lacked variety, and did not taste good, with some noting inadequate portions. During a breakfast tray line observation, an NHA checked a test tray after it reached the unit and found the breakfast burrito at 80 F, cream of wheat at 100 F, coffee at 110 F, and juice at 30 F, all below the facility's stated serving temperature standards.
Improper Labeling and Storage of Food Items: Surveyors observed more than 20 souffle cups of salad dressing labeled with an old prep date, leftover egg salad labeled with a later date, and unlabeled dry storage bins containing flour and sugar. A Dietary Aide stated leftover foods should be labeled, refrigerated, and discarded after 3 days, and the DM later confirmed that expectation.
A facility served meals on paper trays with plastic utensils for an extended period without documented clinical or regulatory justification, affecting two residents reviewed for dignity. The practice continued even though the residents were on EBP, not Contact Precautions, and staff cited infection prevention concerns after an NDM organism was identified in another resident; residents expressed dissatisfaction with the ongoing use of disposable meal service items.
A resident’s personal and medical information was left visible on an open laptop on an unlocked med cart outside the resident’s room. An LPN searched a controlled substance logbook, spoke back to the resident about a medication question, then returned to the cart, closed the screen, and locked it after the surveyor observed the privacy lapse.
Delayed Review of PRN Anxiolytic Order: A resident had an active PRN hydroxyzine order for anxiety that remained in place without a documented duration or stop date despite repeated pharmacy recommendations to re-evaluate the medication. The provider did not sign off on the recommendations for an extended period, and the MAR showed the medication stayed active while doses were administered. Staff interviews confirmed the facility expected pharmacy recommendations to be reviewed within a set timeframe, but that did not occur here.
Inaccurate MDS assessments were identified for two residents. One resident had a colostomy observed by surveyors and documented in the hospital discharge summary, but the MDS incorrectly coded no ostomy present and the record lacked a colostomy care plan and physician orders. Another resident was receiving daily insulin injections, yet the annual MDS incorrectly stated the resident was not on insulin and did not receive injections.
A facility failed to obtain and implement physician orders that matched residents’ care plans and assessed needs. Two residents with significant ROM limitations and dependence for bed mobility had care plans directing turning and repositioning every 2 hours, but the corresponding physician orders were missing, and one resident’s documentation system no longer reflected the intervention. In addition, a resident with a chronic suprapubic catheter had catheter care orders, but the orders did not include the clinical indication for the catheter.
Failure to Update Wound Treatment Orders: A resident with a Stage 4 pressure ulcer of the left lateral knee did not receive wound tx in accordance with the wound MD’s recommendations. The active order remained an older regimen with NS cleansing, collagen powder, Hydrofera Blue foam, and bordered gauze instead of the updated Dakin’s and Santyl orders. Staff interviews showed the wound notes were provided after wound rounds, but the corresponding orders were not entered into the EMR as documented.
Oxygen was not administered as ordered for one resident, whose flow meter was found set below the ordered rate until staff reviewed the order and adjusted it. In a separate finding, another resident's nasal cannula was observed out of the nostrils and the oxygen tubing was not labeled, and an RN acknowledged both issues when questioned.
Failure to Document Non-Pharmacological Pain Interventions: Staff failed to document non-pharmacological pain measures before giving PRN analgesics to multiple residents. One resident received repeated Tylenol and oxycodone doses, another received multiple PRN oxycodone doses with a care plan calling for relaxation, guided imagery, music, distraction, and massage, and a third resident had a PRN Tylenol order and pain care plan but no documented evidence that non-drug interventions were attempted or effective.
An unlocked med cart with an open laptop was observed outside a resident room, and the resident’s meds and personal information were visible on the screen. An LPN was seen accessing the cart, checking the controlled substance logbook, reviewing the computer screen, and then locking the cart after the surveyor observed the issue.
Failure to obtain routine dental services for a resident with ill-fitting dentures and an edentulous mouth. Oral screenings repeatedly identified the need for a dental consult, but no documented dental visit was found since admission. The DON stated the resident had not been enrolled in the outside dental program and that this was an oversight.
Inaccurate documentation of resident showers. A resident stated they wanted showers but had only been getting bed baths, while the MDS showed it was very important for them to choose between a shower and a bath. Record review showed only bed baths documented for several months, but staff interviews revealed showers had been given and were not entered into the system by a CMA who said she provided them even though she does not normally give showers.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions: Two staff entered a resident’s room with enhanced barrier precautions in place without using hand sanitizer before entry and were observed touching the bed, sheets, air mattress, and air mattress device. Later, an LPN and the unit manager again entered without hand hygiene, and the in-room sanitizer dispenser was found not to dispense when tested by the surveyor. One staff member gave no explanation, and the other said he forgot and would pay more attention next time.
Housekeeping failed to keep a shared resident room, bathroom, and multiple unit areas clean and sanitary. A room occupied by two residents had a strong urine odor, stained flooring, a dirty toilet, and heavy clutter from cups and food containers, while other rooms on Units 4, 5, and 6 had debris, unmade beds, and floors needing cleaning. Staff and the ADM said one resident’s hoarding and resistance made cleaning difficult, but the bathroom and room condition showed the area had not been cleaned for an extended period.
Meals Served Below Required Temperatures
Penalty
Summary
Meals were not served at an appealing and palatable temperature. During resident interviews, multiple residents reported ongoing concerns about the quality, taste, temperature, variety, and portions of meals served by the facility. Residents stated that food tasted awful, did not taste good, was room temperature, was usually cold, was rarely served hot, and that meal portions were inadequate. On 6/26/2026, the surveyor observed a breakfast tray line and requested that a test tray be placed on the last insulated meal cart designated for Unit 1. The cart was loaded with breakfast trays, left the kitchen, and arrived on Unit 1. After the last tray was served, the NHA took temperatures from the test tray and found the breakfast burrito at 80 F, cream of wheat at 100 F, coffee at 110 F, and juice at 30 F. The surveyor informed the NHA that the hot food items and coffee were significantly below the facility's recommended serving temperatures. A review of the facility's Food Temperature Control policy showed recommended serving temperatures of 155-160 F for meat protein, 160-170 F for starch and vegetables, 130-160 F for hot liquids, and below 40 F for cold foods; the breakfast burrito, cream of wheat, and coffee were below those ranges.
Improper Labeling and Storage of Food Items
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure food items were properly labeled and stored to maintain their integrity and prevent the use of outdated food. During the initial kitchen tour with the Dietary Manager, the surveyor observed more than 20 plastic souffle cups containing salad dressing labeled with a preparation date of 6/9/2026, a clear container of leftover egg salad covered with plastic wrap and labeled 6/13/2026, and two dry storage bins containing flour and sugar that were not labeled. A Dietary Aide stated that leftover food items should be labeled, refrigerated, and discarded after 3 days. The Nursing Home Administrator was notified of the findings, and a review of the facility's Storage and Use of Leftover Foods policy dated February 2001 showed that all refrigerated leftover foods must be used within 48 hours. Staff later confirmed that leftover food items were expected to be labeled, refrigerated, and discarded after 3 days.
Dignity Concern: Disposable Meal Service Used Without Justification
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to promote and maintain residents’ dignity by serving meals on paper trays with disposable plastic utensils for an extended period without a documented clinical or regulatory justification. This practice was identified for two residents reviewed for dignity, both of whom were on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) rather than Contact Precautions. Resident #39 stated that meals were routinely served on paper trays with plastic utensils and expressed dissatisfaction with the practice, and Resident #9 also voiced concern about the continued use of disposable meal service items. Facility staff stated that paper trays and plastic utensils were being used on Unit 1 because many residents were on EBP and Contact Precautions for infection prevention purposes. The Infection Prevention and Control Nurse reported that the practice began after a resident tested positive for NDM Citrobacter freundii and NDM Klebsiella pneumoniae and that there was no established stop date. The Dietary Manager stated the disposable products had been used for more than one month, and the Regional Clinical Nurse stated the facility believed verbal guidance from the Maryland Department of Health supported the practice, although no documentation was available to show residents or representatives had been notified. Survey review of the Maryland Department of Health memorandum showed infection prevention recommendations but no recommendation for routine disposable meal trays, dishes, or utensils.
Failure to Protect Resident Clinical Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to keep a resident’s personal and medical records private and confidential when an unlocked medication cart with an open laptop was observed outside a resident room, with Resident #86’s medications and some personal information visible on the screen. During the observation, an LPN came out of the room, opened the controlled substance logbook, searched through it, and called back to the resident to say he was looking for information about whether the resident had been given a particular medication. The LPN then returned to the cart, looked at the computer screen, closed the window on the screen, and locked the cart. Another nurse approached the cart, and the LPN informed her of the medication issue before both went into the room and spoke with the resident. When interviewed, the LPN acknowledged the observations and stated he would correct his actions.
Delayed Review of PRN Anxiolytic Order
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident’s psychotropic drug regimen was free from unnecessary medication when it did not timely act on pharmacy recommendations regarding an active PRN anxiolytic order. Resident #18 had an order for hydroxyzine pamoate 50 mg by mouth every 12 hours as needed for anxiety, and the medication was classified in the chart as an antianxiety agent. A monthly pharmacy review on 04/08/2026 recommended re-evaluating the continued use of hydroxyzine PRN and considering a duration of therapy or a stop date. A second pharmacy review on 06/01/2026 repeated the same recommendation, noting again that the resident had an order for hydroxyzine 50 mg PO Q12 hours PRN anxiety and that the intent for duration of therapy should be re-evaluated, with consideration of a duration or stop date. Documentation showed that the provider did not review or sign off on either recommendation until 06/24/2026, which was 77 days after the first recommendation. At that time, the provider marked the recommendation as agreed and added a comment to refer to psych. The MAR showed that the hydroxyzine order remained active from its start date of 04/07/2026 until it was discontinued on 06/24/2026, and the resident received doses on 04/26/2026, 05/04/2026, 05/08/2026, and 06/04/2026. A new order was then entered on 06/24/2026 for hydroxyzine pamoate 50 mg every 12 hours as needed for anxiety for 2 months. During interviews, the DON stated that pharmacy recommendations should be reviewed within 7 days, but the resident’s hydroxyzine duration was not added within that timeframe. Staff also stated that PRN psychotropic medications were monitored through behavioral tools and psychiatric review, and the record reflected that the only psych notes were from January 2026.
Inaccurate MDS Assessments for Ostomy and Insulin Use
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure that annual MDS assessments were accurate for two residents. For one resident, surveyors observed a colostomy with a pouch on the lower abdomen during the screening process, and the resident stated the procedure had been done in the hospital. The medical record included a hospital discharge summary documenting a history of rectal cancer, colectomy/colostomy, and other diagnoses, but the resident’s comprehensive MDS coded Section H as having no ostomy present. The clinical record also contained no current comprehensive care plan for colostomy care and no active physician orders directing nursing staff on colostomy management or stoma care. For another resident, the clinical record showed the resident was prescribed insulin and was receiving daily injections, but the annual MDS completed by the facility indicated the resident did not receive any injections and was not on insulin in Section N. During interview, the MDS Coordinator acknowledged the colostomy had been missed during assessment and that insulin should have been listed on the MDS. The DON and Regional Clinical Nurse were informed of the findings and agreed the colostomy should have been captured from the hospital discharge summary or the resident’s physical assessment.
Missing Physician Orders for Turning/Repositioning and Chronic Catheter Indication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure physician orders were obtained and implemented in accordance with residents’ assessed needs and care plans. For one resident with contractures of both hips, knees, elbows, and wrists and impaired range of motion on MDS assessment, the comprehensive care plan directed staff to assist with turning and repositioning at least every 2 hours, but no corresponding physician order was in place. Staff stated that turning and repositioning was the responsibility of GNAs and nurses, and that documentation should have been completed on the GNA Task Care Record, but that record was not available. The regional clinical nurse acknowledged that the facility had documented turning and repositioning on TARs in prior months, but beginning in April the related physician order was not entered, so the intervention no longer appeared on the TAR until a new order was entered after surveyor inquiry. A second resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right dominant side had bilateral upper and lower extremity ROM limitations and was dependent for bed mobility. The resident’s care plan also directed staff to assist with turning and repositioning at least every 2 hours, but there was no corresponding physician order for that intervention, and neither the GNA Task Care Record nor the TAR included the turn-and-reposition task or a way for nursing staff to document completion. In addition, a resident with obstructive and reflux uropathy had a chronic suprapubic catheter with orders for catheter care, but the physician orders did not include the clinical indication for the catheter. The DON stated the facility expected urinary catheter orders to include the appropriate diagnosis or clinical indication, and the facility’s urinary catheter policy required a physician order for indwelling, coude, suprapubic, and straight catheterization.
Failure to Update Wound Treatment Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident with a Stage 4 pressure ulcer of the left lateral knee received treatment in accordance with the wound physician’s recommendations. On 6/22/2026, the wound physician documented orders for 1/4 strength Dakin’s solution as a wet-to-moist dressing and Santyl ointment once daily and as needed for 10 days, but the resident’s active physician orders continued to reflect an older order from 5/26/2026 for normal saline cleansing, collagen powder, Hydrofera Blue foam, and bordered gauze once daily every shift instead of the updated wound treatment plan. During interviews, the wound physician stated that wound rounds were completed with his assistant and the facility’s wound nurse, and that wound notes and treatment recommendations were provided to the facility for entry into the medical record. RN #19 stated the wound nurse entered the corresponding orders, while LPN #16 stated he/she uploaded the wound physician’s notes and notified the attending physician for approval before entering orders. The Regional Clinical Nurse stated the resident had been receiving Santyl for several months and was unsure why the updated wound treatment order had not been entered after the wound physician’s recommendations.
Oxygen Not Delivered as Ordered and Cannula Not Secured or Labeled
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that oxygen was administered as ordered for Resident #17. During an initial screening observation, the resident was in bed receiving supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula, and the concentrator flow meter was set at 2.5 L/min. The resident was unsure whether the ordered oxygen flow should have been 2 L/min or 3 L/min. A later review of the electronic record showed an active order dated 5/26/2026 for oxygen via nasal cannula at 3 LPM every shift for COPD, but another observation showed the flow meter still set at 2.5 L/min. Staff #5 verified the finding, reviewed the order, stated the resident should be receiving 3 L/min, and adjusted the flow meter to 3 L/min after the surveyor identified the discrepancy. The facility also failed to ensure that Resident #98's oxygen tubing was labeled and placed in the resident's nose as ordered. During the initial tour, the resident's nasal cannula was observed out of the resident's nose with no tape or other measure used to keep it in place, and the oxygen tubing was not labeled. When questioned, Nurse #21 acknowledged that the nasal cannula should have been in the resident's nostrils and that the tubing should have been labeled. The Administrator was informed of the findings.
Failure to Document Non-Pharmacological Pain Interventions
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to document attempts at non-pharmacological pain interventions before administering pain medications for multiple residents. For Resident #124, the record showed PRN orders for acetaminophen 325 mg, 2 tablets every 4 hours for pain 1-5, and oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours for pain 6-10. The MAR showed repeated administration of Tylenol and oxycodone throughout June 2026, but review of the TAR and progress notes did not show documentation of non-pharmacological interventions before these medications were given. For Resident #18, the record showed active PRN oxycodone orders for moderate and severe pain, and the MAR showed multiple administrations of both strengths in June 2026. The care plan identified non-pharmacological approaches such as relaxation, guided imagery, music, distraction, and massage before, after, and if possible during painful activities or before pain occurs, but the record did not show documented evidence that these interventions were implemented before opioid administration. For Resident #10, the clinical record showed a PRN Tylenol order and a pain care plan with the same non-pharmacological approaches, but there was no evidence staff documented attempts at these interventions or whether they were successful.
Unlocked Medication Cart with Visible Resident Information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments when staff left a medication cart unlocked outside a resident room. During an environmental tour, an unlocked medication cart with an open laptop was observed, and Resident #86’s medications and some personal information were visible on the screen. While the surveyor observed from two feet away, an LPN came out of the room, accessed the cart, opened the controlled substance logbook, and searched for information about whether the resident had received a particular medication. The LPN then returned to the cart, viewed the computer screen, closed the window on the screen, and locked the cart. Another nurse later approached the cart, and the LPN informed her of the medication issue before they went into the room and spoke with the resident.
Failure to Obtain Routine Dental Services
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide or obtain routine dental services for a resident who reported that dentures were not fitting well and who had no teeth in the mouth on observation. During the resident interview, the resident stated a desire to see a dentist because of the denture issue. The record showed oral screenings completed on four separate occasions, and each screening identified the resident as edentulous with a dental consult needed. Despite those repeated findings, there was no documented evidence that a dental consult was obtained at any time since the resident’s admission in April 2025. In interview, the DON stated that the facility’s outside dental company was supposed to provide annual assessments and that the resident’s chart contained no documentation of a completed dental visit. The DON later clarified that the facility offered one dentist visit and two dental hygienist visits per year through an outside company, but this resident had not been enrolled in the dental program and was described as having been overlooked.
Inaccurate Documentation of Resident Showers
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure a resident's showers were documented accurately. During interview, the resident stated they wanted showers but had not received one and said they were only getting bed baths because staff would not take them to the shower. The resident's MDS indicated that it was very important to choose whether they received a shower or a bath. Review of the clinical record and Documentation Survey Reports for April, May, and June 2026 showed the resident was documented as receiving bed baths and not showers. During staff interviews, the Fourth Floor Unit Manager stated the resident took a shower the prior week and usually refused, especially on dialysis days, and later produced shower sheets showing showers on two dates. However, the staff member who was listed as providing those showers stated she had given the resident many showers but did not enter them into the system because she does not normally give showers. She said she was a CMA and gave the showers because it was easy, and she could not explain why the resident was documented as not receiving showers despite stating she had provided them.
Failure to Follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions during a random observation on a recertification/complaint survey. A sign on the door of a room indicated that enhanced barrier precautions were in place, which required hand sanitizer use before entering and before exiting the room, along with gloves, gown, and mask before contact with the resident and the resident’s linen. Staff #11 and Staff #12 entered the room without using hand sanitizer prior to entry and were observed touching the bed, sheets, air mattress, and the air mattress device that maintained the air content. They left the room after about two minutes. Later, Staff #11 re-entered the room with the unit manager, Staff #14, and neither used hand sanitizer before entering. As they were leaving, Staff #14 appeared to prompt Staff #11 to use the sanitizer dispenser inside the room, and both placed their hands under the dispenser and rubbed their hands together. During the observation, the surveyor found that the sanitizer dispenser in the room did not dispense when tested multiple times and had to use the hallway dispenser instead. Staff #11 did not provide an explanation when interviewed, and Staff #12 stated that he forgot and would pay more attention next time.
Unsanitary resident room and incomplete housekeeping across multiple units
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for two sampled residents when housekeeping staff did not clean their shared room and bathroom adequately, and general housekeeping duties were not completed across Units 4, 5, and 6. Review of the facility’s environmental hygiene policy showed that housekeeping surfaces are to be cleaned regularly and when visibly soiled, environmental surfaces are to be disinfected on a regular basis and when visibly soiled, and personnel should remain alert for rodent activity and report findings to the Environmental Services Director. One resident had diagnoses including unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbances, acquired absence of right finger(s), acquired absence of left thumb, iron deficiency, gangrene, and essential hypertension. The resident’s annual MDS showed severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 4 out of 15, while a quarterly MDS noted mild cognitive impairment and no behavioral symptoms during the assessment period. The other resident was cognitively intact on the annual MDS with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15 and had no behavioral symptoms documented during the assessment period, although the care plan noted mood disturbance related to adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct, with periods of aggressive behaviors and hoarding. Observation of the shared room showed numerous empty beverage containers, food containers, and coffee cups covering the nightstand and over-bed table, a stained floor area extending from one resident’s side of the room to the other, and a strong smell of urine. The bathroom toilet was stained with a light brown substance from the inner rim to the drainage area, the toilet seat had black dirt marks, and the toilet water was constantly running. Additional observations on other units showed gloves, paper, and other debris on floors, unmade beds, and floors requiring sweeping. A later observation still found a strong odor of urine in the room, and another room on Unit 4 had black skid marks, black scuff marks, and a broken floor tile with a missing piece. Interviews confirmed that the resident with hoarding behaviors often refused to allow items to be thrown away, but staff said the resident did allow bathroom cleaning. The Administrator stated the room was being cleaned every two to three weeks because of the resident’s resistance and hoarding, and confirmed that the cleaning schedule being used was not effective. Staff also stated the bathroom condition did not develop overnight and appeared not to have been cleaned in a couple of weeks. Multiple staff members reported that the room often smelled foul and like urine, and that the odor affected the roommate. The Director of Environmental Services confirmed that housekeeping tasks were to be completed daily in rooms requiring cleaning, but staff had difficulty getting the resident to cooperate with room cleaning.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 1,407 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 6 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Baltimore
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Future Care Charles Village | 0.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 30 | 0 |
| The Nursing And Rehab Center At Stadium Place | 1 mi | ★★★★★ | 8 | 0 |
| Future Care Sandtown-winchester | 1.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Keswick Multi-care Center | 1.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 23 | 0 |
| Transitional Care Services At Mercy Medical Center | 2 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Future Care Homewood.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.