Citations in Maryland
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Maryland.
Statistics for Maryland (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Maryland
Facility staff did not ensure that 2nd floor residents who could not use stairs were able to receive visitors when the only elevator was out of service for an extended period. Complaints indicated that some family members, who were themselves unable to ambulate stairs, could not visit their relatives on the 2nd floor during this time. The emergency plan directed non-ambulatory 2nd floor residents to remain on that floor unless there was an emergency and did not address how visitation would be maintained when the elevator was inoperable. The Administrator reported that visitors could use the stairs and that an emergency chair system could be used to move residents, but also stated that the chair system was not used for visitation and was unaware of any complaints, despite two having been filed.
Facility staff did not complete required quarterly smoking safety assessments for several residents identified as smokers, including some who had not been reassessed for many months and one who had never been assessed during their stay. This issue was discovered during a complaint survey after the facility’s only elevator was out of service for an extended period, affecting a group of residents on an upper floor who needed to reach a designated smoking area on a lower floor. Review of records and staff interviews, including with the DON and a unit manager, confirmed that the facility’s own practice of quarterly smoking safety assessments for smokers was not followed for half of the affected residents.
Facility staff failed to accurately code multiple MDS assessments for several residents, leading to discrepancies between MDS entries and MARs for pain management, falls, and high-risk drug classes. In several cases, scheduled pain management was coded as provided when MARs did not show daily pain medications, often because an LPN counted low-dose Aspirin ordered for cardiovascular prophylaxis or heart failure as pain medication, contrary to RAI guidance. One resident’s falls were underreported on the MDS despite two documented falls, and daily use of a topical analgesic and an antiplatelet (Aspirin) was not correctly captured. Other residents had MDS entries indicating use of hypnotic or antianxiety medications when MARs showed none, while actual antidepressant and hypoglycemic medications administered daily were omitted from Section N0415. These errors were confirmed by the involved LPNs during surveyor interviews.
Staff failed to conduct complete investigations into two residents’ abuse allegations. In one case, a resident reported that an employee poked their face and made an obscene gesture, but the investigation lacked a statement from the corporate representative who was first notified of the allegation. In another case, a resident reported that someone in blue clothing put a hand by their face and over their mouth, with a specific GNA identified as the alleged perpetrator; however, the investigation did not include statements from two GNAs who were on duty on the unit at the time of the alleged incident, despite leadership having the opportunity to ensure all relevant documents were present.
Staff failed to create person-centered care plans for two residents, one with mobility limitations and one receiving peritoneal dialysis. For the resident with mobility issues, the care plan did not address the resident’s refusal to use a Hoyer lift and preference for pivot transfers, despite therapy prohibiting pivot transfers and staff awareness of the resident’s resistance. For the resident on peritoneal dialysis, the care plan did not specify that the treatment was peritoneal dialysis, nor did it include the treatment schedule or cycle time frames; an LPN Unit Manager acknowledged using a generalized renal care plan without incorporating the specific dialysis prescription.
A resident’s medical record lacked documentation confirming that scheduled showers or bed baths were provided on multiple dates, and there was also no record of any refusals of care on those days. The DON and an LPN unit manager reported that showers were scheduled on specific shifts and that completed showers and refusals should be documented on shower/skin sheets and in the care plan, but the surveyor found gaps where no such entries existed. This resulted in incomplete ADL documentation and failure to maintain medical records according to accepted professional standards.
Failure to Ensure Visitation Rights During Elevator Outage
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure that residents residing on the 2nd floor who could not safely ambulate using stairs were able to exercise their right to have visitors when the facility’s only elevator malfunctioned. Complaint reviews showed that family members were unable to visit their relatives on the 2nd floor when the elevator was inoperative, and these family members themselves were unable to use the stairs. An incident report documented that the facility’s only elevator was malfunctioning for an extended period, from 3/28/26 to 4/23/26. During this time, residents who could not use the stairs remained on the 2nd floor, and some of their family members could not access them due to the lack of elevator service. Review of the facility’s emergency plan revealed that it instructed that 2nd floor residents who could not safely use the stairs should remain on the 2nd floor unless there was an emergency, and it did not include any provisions for maintaining visitation when the elevator was inoperable. In an interview, the Administrator stated that visitors could use the stairs to visit 2nd floor residents and that residents could be transported using an emergency chair system to meet visitors who could not use the stairs. However, the Administrator acknowledged that the emergency chair system was not used for visitation purposes during the elevator outage and reported being unaware of any complaints about the inoperative elevator, despite two complaints having been received by OHCQ. No additional documentation was provided to show a plan to support visitation for 2nd floor residents during the elevator malfunction.
Failure to Complete Required Quarterly Smoking Safety Assessments
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to update smoking safety assessments at least once every three months for multiple residents identified as smokers. During a complaint survey focused on smoking safety, surveyors reviewed an incident involving the facility’s only elevator being inoperative for nearly a month, which affected residents who lived on the 2nd floor and needed to access the 1st-floor smoking area. The facility’s investigation identified a group of 10 residents on the 2nd floor who smoked and required additional accommodations to safely ambulate to the designated smoking area. Review of these residents’ medical records showed that 5 of the 10 did not receive quarterly smoking safety assessments as required by the facility’s practice. Specifically, four residents had not received a smoking assessment since May 2025, and one resident had no documented smoking assessment at any time during their stay. During interviews, the Unit Manager stated that residents identified as smokers are to be assessed quarterly for smoking safety. When the surveyor pointed out the missing assessments, the DON reviewed the records and confirmed that these residents had not received the required quarterly smoking assessments. This lack of timely reassessment occurred in the context of an extended elevator outage that necessitated special consideration for safe smoking access for residents residing on the 2nd floor.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Pain Management, Falls, and High-Risk Drug Classes
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded for multiple residents, based on medical record review and staff interviews. For one resident with cerebrovascular disease, an MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 3/2/26 coded Section J0100A (scheduled pain management) as "yes," but the March Medication Administration Record (MAR) did not show daily pain medication administration. An LPN stated she coded it that way because the resident received Aspirin 81 mg daily, although the physician’s order showed the Aspirin was prescribed as prophylaxis for cardiovascular events, and the RAI Manual specifies that medications not primarily intended for pain relief should not be coded as pain management. Another resident with cerebral infarction, congestive heart failure, and vascular dementia had two documented falls in progress notes between the prior assessment and the ARD of 2/4/26, but Section J1900 (number of falls since admission or prior assessment) captured only one fall. The same MDS coded Section J0100A (scheduled pain management) as "no" despite the February MAR documenting daily use of Diclofenac topical gel for pain. The MAR also showed daily Aspirin 81 mg for coronary artery disease, but Section N0415 (high-risk drug classes) did not capture the use of an antiplatelet medication. The responsible LPN confirmed missing the second fall and the Aspirin coding error. Additional residents had similar discrepancies: one resident’s MDS repeatedly coded use of hypnotic medications in Section N0415 when MARs showed no hypnotics administered, and failed to capture an antidepressant (Sertraline) that was given; the LPN reported coding Clonazepam as a hypnotic based on dual use, though reference guidelines did not classify it as such. Further inaccuracies were identified for other residents in pain management and high-risk drug class coding. One resident’s MDS with an ARD of 1/8/26 coded receipt of PRN pain medication in Section J0100A, but the January MAR showed no PRN pain medications given; a later MDS for the same resident coded use of an antianxiety medication in Section N0415, while the April MAR showed no such medication administered. Another resident with traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage, type 2 diabetes with neuropathy, atrial fibrillation, and atherosclerotic heart disease had an MDS with an ARD of 2/3/26 that coded scheduled pain medication as "yes" and PRN pain medication as "no," although the MAR showed intermittent PRN Tylenol for pain and no daily pain medication, and also documented daily Aspirin 81 mg for heart failure and daily Rybelus for diabetes; the MDS failed to capture PRN pain use, incorrectly coded daily pain medication, and did not code hypoglycemic medication in Section N0415. Another resident with a history of stroke and right-sided hemiplegia/hemiparesis had two MDS assessments in February coded as receiving scheduled pain medication, but the February MAR did not show daily pain medication; the LPN reported coding based on daily prophylactic Aspirin 81 mg, which was not ordered for pain.
Incomplete Investigations of Resident Abuse Allegations
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to complete thorough investigations of two separate resident allegations that were reported to the state agency. For the first incident, a resident alleged that on a specific date and time an employee poked two fingers into their face and showed them their middle finger. The five-day follow-up documented the allegation, but the investigation file did not clearly identify who was the first point of contact for the report. During interview, the Administrator stated that a corporate representative was initially made aware of the alleged incident, but there was no statement from this corporate representative included in the investigation file. The Administrator described their usual investigation process as interviewing involved parties, identifying and interviewing witnesses, reviewing staffing for the date of the alleged incident, and interviewing the resident’s roommate and other nearby residents if there were no direct witnesses. In the second incident, a resident reported that during a specific shift someone wearing blue put a hand by their face and over their mouth, and a particular GNA was identified as the alleged perpetrator. Review of the staffing sheet for the time of the alleged incident showed that two GNAs were working on the unit where the incident was reported to have occurred. However, the investigation file contained no statements or interviews from these two GNAs. Prior to the surveyor’s review of the investigation, the DON and a regional nurse were given the opportunity to review the investigation to ensure all necessary documents were available, yet the statements from the two GNAs remained absent. These omissions demonstrated that the facility did not conduct complete investigations into the reported allegations.
Failure to Develop Person-Centered Care Plans for Mobility and Peritoneal Dialysis Needs
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to develop and implement person-centered care plans that addressed all identified needs for two residents, one with mobility limitations and one receiving peritoneal dialysis. For the resident with mobility limitations, the care plan included interventions for resistance to care and adjustment issues, but did not address the resident’s specific resistance to use of a Hoyer lift and the resident’s insistence on pivot transfers from bed to wheelchair. The Unit Manager confirmed that the resident was resistant to care, did not like the Hoyer lift, and preferred pivot transfers, but also stated that physical therapy had prohibited pivot transfers. Despite this known conflict between the resident’s preferences and therapy restrictions, the care plan lacked individualized interventions related to the resident’s resistance to the Hoyer lift and continued request for pivot transfers. For the resident receiving peritoneal dialysis, review of the electronic health record showed an order for peritoneal dialysis, but the resident’s care plans did not include a person-centered care plan specific to this treatment. The existing dialysis care plan did not specify the type of dialysis treatment being provided, did not document when the resident was scheduled to receive the treatment, and did not include time frames for the dialysis cycles. During an interview, the LPN Unit Manager stated that they do not place the dialysis prescription details into the care plan and instead use a generalized renal care plan by selecting standard items, confirming that the care plan was not individualized to the resident’s ordered peritoneal dialysis regimen.
Failure to Document Resident Showers and Refusals
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to maintain complete and accurate documentation of bathing care for a resident, specifically regarding showers and refusals of showers. During a complaint survey, the surveyor requested verification that Resident #5 was receiving scheduled showers. The DON stated that the resident was scheduled for showers on the 3 pm–11 pm shift on Tuesdays and Fridays, and provided shower sheets for several dates in October and early November. However, there was no documentation to verify that the resident received a shower or bed bath on 10/17/25, 10/21/25, and 10/24/25. The DON explained that when a resident receives a shower it is documented on a skin sheet, and that refusals of showers should be documented both in the plan of care and on the shower sheet. Despite this, the surveyor did not receive any documentation indicating that the resident either received bathing care or refused showers on the missing dates. This lack of documentation showed that the facility did not safeguard resident-identifiable information and maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards, as there was no record confirming whether the resident’s scheduled showers or refusals occurred on the identified dates.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in Maryland — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Maryland
Data through Mar 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 against the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Apr 2025 – Mar 2026 vs the prior period Apr 2024 – Mar 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release June 24, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
