← Back to search results

LAYHILL SNF LLC

SILVER SPRING, MD · Montgomery County · For profit - Limited Liability company · 129 certified beds

📍 3227 Bel Pre Road, Silver Spring, MD 20906  ·  📞 (301) 871-2000

Medicare ID: 215168  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Feb 18, 2026

Special Focus Facility (SFF)
CMS has identified this as a facility with a history of serious quality issues that requires enhanced oversight and more frequent inspections.
Overall Safety Score
32
out of 100
Poor
Component Scores
11
Inspection
57
Staffing
12
Enforcement
Complaints
87
Quality
📋 Last inspected: February 18, 2026 📦 CMS data as of: May 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
11
Staffing
57
Enforcement
12
Complaints
0
Quality Outcomes
87

What the numbers mean

LAYHILL SNF LLC scored 32 out of 100 — 32 points below the state average of 64.

📋 Inspections: 82 citations over the last 36 months — 55 more than the state average (27). 3 were rated serious (G+) — inspectors found actual or potential harm to residents.

⚠️ Staffing: Staffing levels are below average. Lower staffing is associated with longer response times, more pressure injuries, and higher hospitalization rates. Ask the facility directly about their RN-to-resident ratio and how they handle shortfalls.

⚠️ Penalties & enforcement: CMS has recorded 3 enforcement actions totaling $153,596 against this facility. Penalties are only issued after a facility fails two levels of regulatory review — meaning this is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation. Ask for a written explanation of every fine and what corrective actions were taken.

⚠️ Complaints: Above-average complaint activity. Complaint surveys are unannounced and targeted — they often surface problems that routine annual inspections miss. Ask management about the nature of complaints filed and how each was resolved.

💚 Resident quality outcomes: This facility's star-rated quality measures are in the strong range. Key indicators like fall rates, antipsychotic use, and vaccination coverage compare favorably to national benchmarks — a positive signal for day-to-day resident care.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

82
Total citations
State avg: 27
3
Serious (G+)
State avg: 0.7
0
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

82

⚖ Penalties & Enforcement

Federal civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are only issued after a facility has failed two levels of regulatory review — meaning problems were found on inspection and the facility could not rebut the findings. This is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation.

$153,596
Total federal fines
3
Enforcement actions

⚠ Each enforcement action required CMS to make a separate non-compliance determination — meaning this facility failed two levels of regulatory review before any fine was issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective steps were taken.

📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
📊
Enforcement score: 12/100 — 63 points below the state average of 75/100 — worse than most comparable facilities. A score below 70 indicates a meaningful enforcement history that warrants direct conversation with facility management.
Serious Citations That May Have Triggered Enforcement
F0678 — Immediate danger · Sep 23, 2024
F0865 — No harm, could worsen · Sep 23, 2024
Facility assessment — No harm, could worsen · Sep 23, 2024

📅 Per-action enforcement records (date, fine amount, and penalty type for each individual action) are sourced from a separate CMS enforcement dataset and will be added in a future data update.

🩹

Resident Wellbeing — Key Indicators

These are the measures families ask about most. They come from CMS clinical assessments of every resident — not just inspection reports. Stars (★) count toward the official CMS quality star rating.

Antipsychotic medication use
0.8% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. High use can signal residents being over-medicated rather than receiving attentive care.
Flu vaccination rate
3.2% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu this season. Higher is better.
Re-hospitalized after discharge
23.0% lower is better
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. Risk-adjusted for resident health.
Hospitalization rate
9.0% lower is better
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year. Adjusted for how sick residents were.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures & Medicare claims data. Scores shown are the most recent 4-quarter averages for long-stay residents.

Track this facility with free email alerts

Get notified when new inspections, citations, score changes, or enforcement actions are published for this facility.

🛑
Overall Assessment — Critical Issues — Proceed With Extreme Caution  ·  32/100
This facility has serious issues in the public record. This is among the lowest-scoring facilities in our coverage area.
What to do next: We strongly recommend exploring other options. If this facility is the only choice, require a written corrective action plan and speak with the state ombudsman before proceeding.
🛑
CMS Special Focus Facility
CMS has placed this facility on its Special Focus Facility list — a designation reserved for nursing homes with a persistent pattern of serious problems and substandard care. These facilities receive more frequent inspections and are under enhanced federal oversight. This is one of the most serious designations a nursing home can receive.
Federal Penalty: $153,596 (3 separate actions)
CMS has imposed civil monetary penalties totaling $153,596 against this facility. Penalties are only levied after a separate non-compliance determination — meaning a facility must fail two levels of regulatory review before a fine is issued. Ask management specifically what violations triggered these fines and what corrective actions were taken.
👥
Staffing Below Federal Minimum Standards
This facility provides 0.59 RN hours per resident per day — below the CMS minimum of 0.75 hours. Total nurse staffing is 3.57 hours per resident per day. Understaffing is the strongest predictor of poor inspection outcomes. Ask specifically about RN coverage on evenings, nights, and weekends.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Inspection record is well below average. Multiple or serious deficiencies found.
👥 Staffing
Staffing is below recommended levels. Ask about RN coverage on nights and weekends.
⚖ Penalties
Facility has received federal fines or enforcement sanctions. Requires direct explanation from management.
💬 Complaints
Higher-than-average complaint volume. Complaint surveys are often triggered by serious resident concerns.
Quality outcome measures are strong — fall rates, antipsychotic use, and other key indicators compare favorably to national benchmarks.
⚠ Serious Findings on Record: 3 citation(s) where inspectors found actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents. See Section D for the full details and ask management how each was resolved.
Score breakdown — the numbers behind this assessment
👥 Staffing 57
What it measures RN hours per resident per day, total nurse hours, and RN turnover rate.
💡 Understaffing is the strongest single predictor of poor inspection outcomes.
📋 Inspection 11
What it measures Number, severity (A–L), and scope of deficiencies found. Repeat findings carry extra weight.
💡 Every citation in Section D feeds directly into this score.
⚖ Penalties 12
What it measures Whether CMS escalated from a deficiency citation to actual financial or operational sanctions.
💡 A penalty means the facility already failed a second level of regulatory review.
💬 Complaints 0
What it measures Volume of complaint-triggered inspections and the share that were substantiated.
💡 Complaint surveys are unannounced — they often surface issues annual surveys miss.
🎯 Quality outcomes 87
What it measures Resident outcome measures: falls, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic use, weight loss, hospitalizations.
💡 Reflects the lived experience of residents beyond what inspectors observe.

Each pillar scores 0–100 and is combined into the overall score. A strong overall can mask a weak pillar — compare all four and see how they stack against the state average in Section B.

🏗 How This Facility Compares to MD State Averages

Comparing a facility to others in the same state puts its score in context. A facility might have 8 citations and that could be above average in one state and below in another. Green means this facility is doing better than its peers; red means it's falling short.

Metric This facility MD avg vs. State
Overall score
The combined Senior Care Report Card score out of 100.
32 64 ▼ Worse than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
11 54 ▼ Worse than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
57 62 ▼ Worse than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
12 75 ▼ Worse than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
0 70 ▼ Worse than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
87 57 ▲ Better than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
82 27 ▼ Worse than state avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
3 0.7 ▼ Worse than state avg

📅 Inspection Timeline

State health inspectors visit nursing homes on a regular cycle — typically every 12 to 15 months — and document every deficiency they find. The timeline below shows the date and scale of each inspection visit over the past several years. A pattern of worsening surveys is a red flag even if the most recent visit looks clean.

2026-02-18
1 citations
2025-10-09
11 citations
2024-09-23
46 citations  (1 serious)
2024-06-18
24 citations  (2 serious)
2019-09-27
7 citations
2018-10-16
16 citations

Bar length proportional to citation count. Red = serious findings (severity G+). Orange = elevated. Green = low.

📄 Full Citation Record

Every time state inspectors visit a nursing home, they write up anything that doesn’t meet federal standards. Each write-up is called a citation.

Each citation shows what the problem was and how serious it was, using a color-coded badge:

Green — No residents harmed Yellow — Risk of harm, no injury Orange — A resident was harmed Red — Life or safety in danger

A Repeat tag means the same problem appeared in a previous inspection — it was not fully corrected the first time. Citations shown cover the last two years.

Survey: 2026-02-18 1 citation(s)
F0628 No harm, could worsen
F0628
Survey: 2025-10-09 11 citation(s)
F0755 No harm, could worsen
Pharmaceutical services
F0658 No harm, could worsen
Services meet professional standards
F0711 No harm, could worsen
F0711
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
F0657 No harm, could worsen
Care plan timing & review
F0552 No harm, could worsen
Right to be informed of care choices
F0628 No harm, could worsen
F0628
F0609 No harm, could worsen
Timely reporting of alleged violations
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
F0686 No harm, could worsen
Pressure ulcer prevention & treatment
F0568 No harm, could worsen
F0568
Survey: 2024-09-23 46 citation(s) — 1 serious
F0678 Immediate danger
F0678
F0865 No harm, could worsen
F0865
F0868 No harm, could worsen
Facility assessment
F0657 No harm, could worsen
Care plan timing & review
F0941 No harm, could worsen
F0941
F0732 No harm, could worsen
Pharmacy policies & procedures
F0679 No harm, could worsen
Activities program
F0757 No harm, could worsen
Unnecessary drugs
F0800 No harm, could worsen
Dietary services provided
F0656 No harm, could worsen
Comprehensive care plan
F0700 No harm, could worsen
Side rail safety
F0697 No harm, could worsen
Pain management
F0584 No harm, could worsen
F0584
F0561 No harm, could worsen
Grievance process
F0909 No harm, could worsen
Maintain equipment in good condition
F0557 No harm, could worsen
Right to access medical records
F0655 No harm, could worsen
Baseline care plan
F0756 No harm, could worsen
Drug regimen review
F0610 No harm, could worsen
Investigate & correct violations
F0625 No harm, could worsen
Involuntary discharge notice
F0605 No harm, could worsen
F0605
F0842 No harm, could worsen
Medical records accuracy & security
F0622 No harm, could worsen
Transfer or discharge requirements
F0688 No harm, could worsen
Range of motion & mobility
F0686 No harm, could worsen
Pressure ulcer prevention & treatment
F0580 No harm, could worsen
Notification of change in condition
F0758 No harm, could worsen
Unnecessary psychotropic drugs
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0641 No harm, could worsen
Accuracy of resident assessment
F0677 No harm, could worsen
Personal hygiene & grooming assistance
F0693 No harm, could worsen
Tube feeding management
F0658 No harm, could worsen
Services meet professional standards
F0759 No harm, could worsen
Medication error rate control
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
F0908 No harm, could worsen
Essential equipment & supplies
F0740 No harm, could worsen
Behavioral health services
F0801 No harm, could worsen
Qualified dietary staff
F0812 No harm, could worsen
Food sanitation & safety
F0692 No harm, could worsen
Nutrition & hydration status
F0676 No harm, could worsen
Activities of daily living (ADLs)
F0921 No harm, could worsen
F0921
F0623 No harm, could worsen
Notice before transfer or discharge
F0578 No harm, could worsen
F0578
F0645 No harm, could worsen
BHP referral requirements
F0552 No harm, could worsen
Right to be informed of care choices
F0919 No harm, could worsen
F0919
Survey: 2024-06-18 24 citation(s) — 2 serious
F0600 Resident was harmed
Freedom from abuse, neglect & exploitation
F0583 Resident was harmed
F0583
F0609 No harm, could worsen
Timely reporting of alleged violations
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
F0610 No harm, could worsen
Investigate & correct violations
F0641 No harm, could worsen
Accuracy of resident assessment
F0622 No harm, could worsen
Transfer or discharge requirements
F0661 No harm, could worsen
F0661
F0711 No harm, could worsen
F0711
F0558 No harm, could worsen
Reasonable accommodations
F0740 No harm, could worsen
Behavioral health services
F0692 No harm, could worsen
Nutrition & hydration status
F0554 No harm, could worsen
Right to refuse treatment
F0865 No harm, could worsen
F0865
F0578 No harm, could worsen
F0578
F0580 No harm, could worsen
Notification of change in condition
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
F0550 No harm, could worsen
Resident rights & dignity
F0686 No harm, could worsen
Pressure ulcer prevention & treatment
F0842 No harm, could worsen
Medical records accuracy & security
F0790 No harm, could worsen
Dental services
F0726 No harm, could worsen
Nurse aide competency
F0760 No harm, could worsen
Medication error — no significant harm
F0656 No harm, could worsen
Comprehensive care plan
🩹

How Are Residents Doing?

Inspections tell you whether a facility followed the rules. These measures tell you how residents actually fared — whether they fell, experienced pain, lost weight, or were over-medicated. CMS collects this data through regular clinical assessments that nurses complete for every resident. Unlike inspections, which happen once a year, these assessments happen continuously.

✓ Positive signal: Most star-rated quality measures for this facility are within a good range, suggesting residents\' day-to-day wellbeing compares favorably to typical nursing homes.

How to read these cards: Each card shows one measure. Lower percentages are better for most (e.g. fewer falls), but higher is better for vaccination rates and community return. ★ Star rating marks measures CMS uses in its official quality star rating.

Long Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Daily activity decline
5.3% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost the ability to dress, eat, or move around independently over the past year. Rising rates can signal that residents aren't receiving enough physical therapy or that staffing is too thin to support mobility.
★ Star rating
Urinary tract infections
0.3% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who had a urinary tract infection. While some UTIs are unavoidable, high rates can point to poor hydration practices, catheter hygiene, or rushed care routines.
★ Star rating
Antipsychotic medication use
0.8% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents given antipsychotic drugs. These medications carry serious risks for older adults. High use often signals that a facility is medicating residents to manage behavior instead of addressing needs through attentive, person-centered care.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing on…
1.4% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
★ Star rating
Flu vaccination rate
3.2% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against the flu. Nursing homes are high-risk environments for flu outbreaks. Anything below 90% warrants a question about the facility's vaccination policy.
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure u…
11.3% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers
★ Star rating
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an…
16.9% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
Physical restraints used
2.3% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents physically restrained (lap belts, side rails). Federal regulations require restraints to be a last resort. High use is a red flag for understaffed facilities cutting corners on behavioral care.
Signs of depression
65.9% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents showing symptoms of depression. Social isolation, lack of meaningful activities, and poor staffing all contribute. This measure reflects the emotional quality of life inside the facility.
Unexplained weight loss
0.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents who lost 5% or more of body weight unexpectedly. This can indicate inadequate nutrition, difficulty eating without assistance, or unaddressed medical issues.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
98.9% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Pneumonia vaccination rate
4.3% higher is better
Share of long-stay residents vaccinated against pneumococcal pneumonia — one of the leading causes of death in older adults. Higher is better.
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and ap…
85.8% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or wor…
27.0% lower is better
Percentage of long-stay residents with new or worsened bowel or bladder incontinence
Short Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Worsening depression symptoms
0.7% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents whose depression got measurably worse over the past year — despite being in a care facility.
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and a…
92.3% lower is better
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Emergency room visits (short-stay)
94.8% lower is better
Share of short-stay residents sent to the ER during their recovery stay. ER visits are disruptive for recovering patients and sometimes avoidable with better on-site clinical management.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures (2025Q1-2025Q4). Collected via standardized clinical assessments — not inspector visits.

🏥

Hospitalization & ER Visits

These numbers come directly from Medicare claims — real billing records of every time a resident was hospitalized or sent to the emergency room. They\'re among the most objective measures of care quality because they can\'t be influenced by how a facility writes up an assessment. The adjusted score is the most meaningful number — it\'s been corrected to account for how sick residents were, so a facility treating frailer patients isn\'t unfairly penalized.

What to look for: An adjusted score significantly above the expected score means this facility hospitalizes residents more often than peer facilities with similar patient populations — that gap is worth asking about directly.

Short Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Re-hospitalized after going home
23.0% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 23.7% Expected: 24.6%
About the same as similar facilities
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. A high rate suggests residents were discharged before they were ready, or that the facility didn't coordinate follow-up care well. Risk-adjusted so facilities treating sicker residents aren't unfairly penalized.
★ Star rating
Hospitalization rate (long-stay)
9.0% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 9.8% Expected: 12.2%
✓ Better than expected for similar residents
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year, adjusted for how ill they were. A high rate relative to expectations suggests the facility may be sending residents to the hospital for issues that skilled nursing staff should be able to manage on-site.
Long Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay res…
1.5% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 1.8% Expected: 2.3%
About the same as similar facilities
Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days
★ Star rating
Number of outpatient emergency department visits …
1.4% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 1.5% Expected: 1.7%
About the same as similar facilities
Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days

Source: CMS Medicare claims data. Scores are risk-adjusted — they account for how ill residents were when admitted so facilities treating sicker populations aren\'t penalized for it.

💬 Questions to Ask Before Touring

These questions are generated specifically from this facility's score profile and citation history — not a generic checklist. A facility's willingness to answer them openly, and the quality of their answers, is itself an important signal. Bring this list when you tour or call.

  1. Federal inspectors found 3 citations rated as causing actual harm or immediate jeopardy in the public record. Walk us through each incident: what happened, who was affected, and what specific policy or staffing changes have been put in place since?
  2. What is your current RN-to-resident ratio on each shift, and what is your annual staff turnover rate among nursing staff?
  3. This facility has a significant CMS enforcement history. Can you identify each action in the past three years, what it was for, and what systemic — not just procedural — changes were made to prevent recurrence?
  4. Complaint data shows a higher-than-average volume of formal complaints filed with the state. What were the most common categories last year, and how does your resolution process work from the moment a complaint is filed?
  5. 3 citations in the public record were rated as causing actual harm to a resident. Can you describe what occurred in each case and what specific safeguards are now in place?
  6. Can we speak privately with two or three current residents or their families?

👪 Family Decision Guide

This guide translates this facility's data into practical next steps for families. It is not a recommendation for or against placement — it is a structured framework for the conversations you need to have before making a decision.

✓ Positives to confirm

  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • Inspection score is low — ask for the most recent state survey results
  • Staffing concerns — request staffing schedules and ask about agency nurse use
  • Penalty history present — ask what enforcement actions occurred and outcomes
  • Elevated complaint activity — ask how resident concerns are investigated
  • Serious-harm citations on record — require a written explanation of corrective action
  • Always speak with at least two current residents or family members independently

📈 Score History

The score is recalculated every time CMS releases updated data (typically monthly). A consistent downward trend is more concerning than a single low score. An improving trend after a period of poor performance may indicate management changes are taking effect. Your subscription will alert you whenever the score changes materially.

2026-05-07
32 — Poor

🔔 Monthly tracking is now free

We check CMS data monthly. Use the tracking form above and we will email you when new citations appear, scores change, or enforcement actions are added.

📋
Monthly report update
New citation alerts
📈
Score trend tracking
🏠 Verify this data on Medicare.gov
All data in this report comes from the CMS Care Compare database. You can review the official public record directly on Medicare.gov — including the full inspection narrative, star ratings, and any recent enforcement actions.
View on Medicare.gov ↗

This report reflects publicly available CMS data only and is updated monthly. Severity codes and narratives are reproduced directly from the CMS health inspection database. Senior Care Report Card scores are independently computed and are not affiliated with or endorsed by CMS or Medicare.gov.

Data source: CMS Care Compare · Methodology · State Ombudsman

This report uses public CMS nursing home data and simplified scoring to help families ask better questions. It is not a recommendation, ranking, medical opinion, legal opinion, or substitute for an in-person visit. Source data last published by CMS: May 4, 2026.