LARKIN CHASE CENTER

15005 HEALTH CENTER DRIVE, BOWIE, MD 20716 (301) 805-6070
For profit - Corporation 120 Beds GENESIS HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#27 of 219 in MD
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: June 2022

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Larkin Chase Center has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is recommended and above average compared to other facilities. It ranks #27 out of 219 nursing homes in Maryland, placing it in the top half, and #5 of 19 in Prince George's County, meaning there are only four facilities nearby that score better. The facility's trend is stable, with the same number of issues reported in both 2018 and 2022. Staffing is a strength, with a 4 out of 5-star rating and a 0% turnover rate, which is well below the state average, suggesting that staff are experienced and familiar with the residents. While there are no fines on record, which is positive, the facility did have 16 issues reported, with 15 being of concern, including incidents of food safety violations like opened and undated food containers and staff not wearing gloves during food preparation. Another concern involved the improper handling of confidential patient information, where shift reports were left unattended and visible, risking resident privacy. Overall, while Larkin Chase Center has strong staffing and no fines, families should be aware of the food safety and privacy issues that need addressing.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Maryland
#27/219
Top 12%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Holding Steady
7 → 7 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Maryland facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 105 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Maryland nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2018: 7 issues
2022: 7 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Chain: GENESIS HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record

Jun 2022 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were kept in a home like environment. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #72 and #87) out ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews it was determined the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were kept in a home like environment. This was found to be evident for 2 (Resident #72 and #87) out of 8 resident rooms observed during the re-certification survey. The findings include: During a tour conducted on the 200-nursing unit on 06/07/2022 at 7:45 AM, surveyors observed Resident #87's closet door lying inside of the resident's closet. During the continued tour of the 200-nursing unit on 06/07/2022 at 7:52 AM, surveyors observed two holes in the wall above the footboard near the entry door of the bathroom in Resident # 72's room. An interview conducted on 06/07/2022 at 1:22 PM, the surveyor advised the Administrator and Director of Nursing (DON) of the observations.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0624 (Tag F0624)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman and Responsible Party in writing that Resident # 75 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman and Responsible Party in writing that Resident # 75 was sent to the hospital. This was evident for 1 out of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization. The findings include: On 6/6/22 at 12:39 AM, a medical record review was conducted for Resident # 75. The record revealed that on 1/25/22: General: Patient was admitted /readmitted for the following reason(S): Teaching and Training Nutrition management cancer Gastrointestinal disease/disorder Management of Diabetes Pain Management The pt. had been hospitalized for greater then 5 days. Additional details about this note: Resident [AGE] year old male admitted with history of rectal cancer. Status/Post (S/P) sepsis, rhabdomyolysis and AKI; Colostomy to left side of abdomen. Resident diabetic with hypertension; Accordion drain to right upper back; No known allergies. The record revealed that on 2/10/22: Resident was sent out to the hospital for further Evaluation due to low H&H, MD (Doctor) and RP (Responsible Party) were notified. Nursing observations, evaluation, and recommendations are: Resident noted with bleeding from the buttock where the multiloculated drainage was before it dislodge. resident states he is weak and unable to stand. CRNP (certified Nurse Practitioner) at bedside and assessed resident and gave order to transfer resident to the nearest ER (Emergency Room), 911 arrived at the unit at 5.30 PM and transferred the resident at 5.45 PM to the Hospital where he has been admitted to room [ROOM NUMBER]. Further record review revealed that: The Primary Care Provider responded with the following feedback: A. Recommendations: Transfer resident to nearest emergency room (ER) Nursing observations, evaluation, and recommendations are: Client was found in room after calling for help. Upon arrival, blood was seen on the floor, bed and bathroom. Resident stated that he was bleeding from his rectum but upon inspection, it was the multiloculate drainage near the left side of the buttock that was exposed and bleeding. Pressure and dressing was applied until paramedics arrived. The Resident was transported and admitted at Hospital. Primary Care Provider Feedback: Primary Care Provider responded with the following feedback: A. Recommendations: Physician agreed with the transport, Patient (Pt) transferred to emergency room (ER) The Surveyor found that the representative was not notified in writing, there was no copy of the hospital transfer notification forwarded to the Ombudsman. An interview revealed that the facility was aware that a letter in writing is required for the Ombudsman and the Responsible Party. The Administrator when interviewed stated, The Business Office Manager is new and was unaware that he needed to do this.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of minimum data set (MDS) assessment information and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to transmit an MDS assessment within 14 days after comple...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of minimum data set (MDS) assessment information and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to transmit an MDS assessment within 14 days after completion. This was evident for 1 (Resident #1) of 1 resident reviewed for the Resident Assessment. The findings include: The MDS is a federally mandated assessment tool that helps nursing home staff gather information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. MDS assessments are completed at differing intervals but never further than 92 days apart as long as a resident remains at a facility. Each assessment must be encoded within seven days and transmitted within fourteen days of the assessment being performed. On 6/10/22 at 9:40 AM, the surveyor reviewed information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding transmission of MDS assessments for the facility. The review revealed that no assessment information had been transferred for Resident #1 from the facility CMS in over 120 days (and that no transmitted assessment indicated that the resident had been discharged ). On 6/10/22 at 10:06 AM, the surveyor reviewed Resident #1's MDS assessments. During the review, it was noted that Resident #1 had a Discharge Return Anticipated/End of PPS Part A Stay assessment completed on 1/15/22. The status was Completed. All of the resident's other assessments were noted to have a status of Accepted. On 6/10/22 at 10:20 AM, the surveyor interviewed the MDS Coordinators. During the interview, the Coordinators confirmed that the discharge assessment for Resident #1 dated 1/15/22 had never been submitted to CMS, stating that something wasn't checked correctly. On 6/10/22 at 1:57 PM, the surveyor received evidence from the facility that Resident #1's discharge assessment from 1/15/22 had been successfully transmitted to the federal database.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on Medical Record Review Resident # 53 did not have a care plan written for the use of a urinary cather and multiple UTI (Urinary Tract infections). This was evident for 1 out of 1 residents. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Medical Record Review Resident # 53 did not have a care plan written for the use of a urinary cather and multiple UTI (Urinary Tract infections). This was evident for 1 out of 1 residents. The findings include: On 06/06/22 at 01:43 PM, a medical record review was conducted for Resident # 53. The resident has a urinary catheter for stage 4 wounds. There was no C.P (Care Plan) for the use of the urinary catheter. On 3/30/22 Resident #53 went to the Wound Care Center and was ordered an indwelling Foley catheter. There was no Care Plan (C.P.) for the Foley Catheter or for the care of Foley Catheter. The Administrator was made aware of this finding by the surveyor at the survey exit.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, the facility failed to put dates on the oxygen tubing and tracheostomy tubing, and gastrostomy tubing for Resident # 100. This was evident for 1 out of 1 resident without dated t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, the facility failed to put dates on the oxygen tubing and tracheostomy tubing, and gastrostomy tubing for Resident # 100. This was evident for 1 out of 1 resident without dated tubing. The findings include: A interview was conducted with Resident # 100 on 6/6/22 at 11:10 AM. At that time, the surveyor's observation revealed that the tubing for GT (Gastrostomy Tube), Oxygen and Tracheostomy (Trach) tubing was not dated.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as evidenced by the presence of insects. This was found to be evident for the kitchen. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation it was determined that the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as evidenced by the presence of insects. This was found to be evident for the kitchen. The findings include: During a tour conducted of the kitchen on 06/09/2022 at 7:00 AM, the surveyor observed the floor wet and multiple gnats that flew around the dishwasher area. On 06/09/2022 at 7:02 AM an interview was conducted; the Kitchen [NAME] #11 stated the dishwasher area had a leak in the floor but had since been fixed which had caused the gnats. During an interview conducted on 06/09/2022 at 7:15 AM, the District Dietary Manager #6 stated he/she would have maintenance address the gnat issue and floor. During an interview conducted on 06/09/2022 at 10:33 AM, the surveyor advised the Director of Nursing (DON) about her observations of gnats. The DON stated he/she would have the Maintenance Director look into the gnats and floor of the kitchen.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure: 1) food items were stored properly and 2) staff practiced appropriate use of gloves. This deficient practice ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews it was determined that the facility failed to ensure: 1) food items were stored properly and 2) staff practiced appropriate use of gloves. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents. The findings include: 1) During a tour conducted of the kitchen's refrigerator on 06/06/2022 at 11:50 AM, the surveyors, the District Dietary Manager # 6 and District Dietary Manager # 7 observed 1 opened and undated box of rice, 1 jar of Peanut Butter opened and undated, 1 container of ground turmeric opened and undated, 1 bag of Parmesan cheese opened and undated, and 1 bottle of Kikkoman Soy Sauce that expired on 05/15/2022. 2) During a tour conducted in the kitchen on 06/06/2022 at 12:05 PM, the surveyors and District Dietary Managers # 6 and # 7 observed Dietary Aide # 8 on the tray line. The Kitchen Aide moved empty breakfast trays down the tray line without the use of gloves. During an interview conducted on 06/06/2022 at 12:06 PM, the District Dietary Manager # 6 stated the kitchen policy required staff to wear gloves during food and beverage preparation activities. During a tour conducted in the kitchen on 06/09/2022 at 7:10 AM, the surveyor observed Kitchen [NAME] # 11 place lids on cups of juice without the use of gloves. The surveyor observed the Kitchen [NAME] stop the placement of the lids and put on gloves. On 06/09/2022 at 7:11 AM the surveyor conducted an interview with the Kitchen [NAME] #11. The [NAME] stated the kitchen policy required him/her to wear gloves during food and drink preparation. During an interview on 06/09/2022 at 7:15 AM, the surveyor advised the District Dietary Manager #6 of the observation. During an interview on 06/09/2022 at 10:33 AM, the surveyor advised the Director of Nursing (DON) of the observation.
Nov 2018 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interview and review of medical records and other pertinent documentation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that Resident #73 was free of abuse from a staff member. This ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview and review of medical records and other pertinent documentation, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that Resident #73 was free of abuse from a staff member. This was evident for 1 of 47 residents reviewed during the survey. The findings include: On 10/30/18, an investigation was initiated regarding a facility reported incident involving Resident #73. According to the facility report, an Occupational Therapist (OT) came in to work one morning and observed Resident #73 in the back hallway attempting to enter a bathroom. As the OT approached the resident, she observed that the resident had been tied around his/her waist to the wheelchair. She immediately wheeled the resident to the unit and handed the resident over to the Charge Nurse. She, also, stated that she informed an Assistant Manager at the start of the day shift. According to Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 10.07.09.14 Physical and Chemical Restraints: A. Physical restraints may be used only: (1) As an integral part of an individual medical treatment plan; (2) If absolutely necessary to protect the resident or others from injury; (3) If prescribed by a physician or administered by another health care professional practicing within the scope of their license; and (4) If less restrictive alternatives were considered and appropriately ruled out by the physician According to a self-report sent to the Office of Healthcare Quality (OHCQ), nursing staff immediately released the resident from the restraint and assessed him/her. The alleged perpetrator was placed on administrative leave pending the results of the investigation. The resident was assessed, and the physician and family notified. A sitter was assigned to stay with and watch over the resident. The report went on to say that the resident had just been admitted that day and displayed confusion, aggression and combativeness towards any staff that approached him/her. The Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) involved confessed that she needed to pass medications, so she tied the resident to the wheelchair. Following the facility investigation into the incident, the LPN was terminated and reported to the State Board of Nursing. The facility is responsible to ensure that residents are free of abuse, including physical restraints not required to treat medical symptoms.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that food service employees failed to ensure that equipment was maintained and safe food handling practices were followed to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that food service employees failed to ensure that equipment was maintained and safe food handling practices were followed to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. The findings include: On October 26, 2018 at 9:30 AM surveyors toured the facility main kitchen with the Food Service Manager. The following observations were made: 1) Two of three hand sinks were observed with no paper towels for hand drying. 2) Metal pans were not air dried prior to storage. Air drying dishes and utensils is required to ensure adequate sanitization. 3) Three light bulbs were not functioning under the fume hood. 4) Employee ' s personal items were observed in the food prep area. Personal items should be kept separate from the food preparation area to prevent cross contamination. On October 31, 2018 at 1:45 PM, surveyors toured the facility kitchen with the Food Service Manager. The following observations were made: 1) The self-closing device on the walk in refrigerator was not functioning properly causing the door to remain ajar. 2) The ice machine was observed with a loose internal gasket and a damaged outer gray gasket.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that personal hygiene equipment items meant for individual use were not mixed together f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure that personal hygiene equipment items meant for individual use were not mixed together for roommates, Residents #70 and #101 and roommates, Residents #6 and #71. This was evident for 4 of 47 residents investigated during the survey. The findings include: On 10/26/18 at 10:35 AM, 4 washbasins and a fracture bedpan, some marked for bed A and some for bed B, were found stacked inside of each other in the bathroom shared by Resident #71 and Resident #6. In another bathroom shared by Residents #101 and #70, 2 washbasins labeled as bed A, 3 wash basins marked bed B, and an unmarked fracture pan were stacked inside each other. Infectious organisms (e.g., bacteria, viruses, or parasites) may be transmitted by direct contact (e.g., skin.-to-skin) or indirect contact (e.g., inanimate objects). Resident care equipment that is moved from resident to resident may serve as a vehicle for transferring infectious organisms if the object is contaminated. The facility is responsible to ensure that personal care items are not co-mingled to help prevent potential cross-contamination.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on medication cart observations and staff interviews it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure that medical records were kept in a confidential manner. This was evident in 2 out of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medication cart observations and staff interviews it was determined that facility staff failed to ensure that medical records were kept in a confidential manner. This was evident in 2 out of 2 medication carts involving Resident's (R#10, R#14, R#28, R#93 and R#120). The findings include: On 10/31/18 at 9:30 A.M. the surveyor observed on the Southside wing unit, on top of a standing unattended Team #3 medication cart, the nurses shift to shift report document that was not kept in a confidential manner. The document is used by the facilities nursing staff for assigning nursing tasks preformed during the nurses shift with assigned residents. On that shift to shift report the surveyor viewed resident's names, room numbers, vital signs, pain medications, labs, pain refusal with nursing medication and treatment comments visible for the public to view which involved residents (R#10, R#14, and R#93) that resided on the unit. On the same day, 10/31/18 at 9:45 A.M., during an interview with nurse staff member #3 he/she replied, I just stepped away for a minute to assist a resident and forgot to turn over the report sheet. Nurse staff member #3 verified the report sheet and stated, all medical records are to be kept in confidential manner and out of public viewing. On 10/31/18 at 10:30 A.M., as observed by the surveyor on the Southside wing unit on top of standing unattended Team #2 medication cart, a physician's faxed medication order document for Omeprazole 20MG Tab for resident (R#28). Omeprazole is prescribed by physician's for GERD/maintenance of healing in erosive esophageal/gastric ulcer to reduce heartburn symptoms. On the same faxed order document on the reverse side of that document the nursing staff had vital signs for resident (R#120) this medical document involving (R#28 and R#120) was not kept in a confidential manner by the facility staff. On 10/13/18 at 2:25 P.M. duringan interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), he/she informed the surveyor that all resident's medical records are to be kept in a confidential manner, per facility policies and nursing practices. The Administrator with the Director of Nursing were informed of the medical record privacy concerns prior during the survey exit.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview with staff it was determined that the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure that residents or resident representatives were notified in writing that they are being transferred out of the facility to a hospital and the reason why the facility is transferring the resident out. This was found to be evident for 3 out of 3 residents' (Resident's #48, #81, and #92) reviewed for a complaint during the investigative portion of the survey. The findings include: 1). On October 29, 2018 at 1:40 P.M. record review revealed that Resident #48 was hospitalized on [DATE]. Interview of the Administrator and Social Service Director revealed that facility staff did not provide written documentation to the resident in writing of the time and the reason for the hospital transfer. 2). Resident #81's medical record was reviewed on 10/30/18 during the investigative stage of the survey process. It was noted that the resident was sent out to the hospital on 9/5/18. Further review of the medical record did not reveal that the resident was notified in writing of the unplanned hospital transfer. 3). On 9/30/18 Resident #92's medical records were reviewed. This review revealed a nurse's transfer to hospital note written on 9/11/18 which revealed that Resident #92 had an unplanned change in condition. The resident was transferred to an acute hospital for medical evaluation. Review of the nurse's transfer note revealed that the Resident #92's family member was called and given an update on the resident's status and that the resident was being transferred out to the emergency room. Further review of the medical records the facility failed to reveal any documentation that written notification was mailed out to the resident or family members notifying him/her of the transfer and the rationale for the transfer. On 9/30/18 at 2:30 PM during an interview with the Executive Corporate Nurse (DON) who reviewed the nurse's transfer note and verified that no written letter of hospital transfer was given to Resident #92 or his/her family. All findings were discussed with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON) and leadership panel at the time of the survey exit.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, environmental rounds and interview with the Maintenance Director it was determined that the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on surveyor observation, environmental rounds and interview with the Maintenance Director it was determined that the facility failed to maintain clean, intact walls in resident rooms. The findings include: On 10/29/2018 at 12:30 PM, surveyors observed the following damage in resident 's rooms: 1. room [ROOM NUMBER], the corner guard on wall entering the bathroom was in disrepair. 2. room [ROOM NUMBER] B, the cove base molding/wall near floor was in disrepair. 3. room [ROOM NUMBER] A, the corner guard near bathroom was in disrepair. 4. room [ROOM NUMBER] B, the interior wall next to the bathroom was in disrepair, plaster was tearing from the wall. 5. room [ROOM NUMBER] A, observed various patches of exposed drywall throughout the room near the cove base molding These findings were confirmed via interview with the Maintenance Director on 10/30/2018.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interviews of facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that garbage and refuse was disposed of properly. The findings include: On October 31, 2018, surv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews of facility staff, it was determined the facility failed to ensure that garbage and refuse was disposed of properly. The findings include: On October 31, 2018, surveyors toured the outside dumpster area. The following observations were made: 1) All dumpster's were left open when not in use. One dumpster was missing the side door preventing it from being closed. Dumpster's must remain closed to prevent harborage of pests. 2) The Biohazard waste container lid was bent upwards and not completely closed.
Jul 2017 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0500 (Tag F0500)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and medical records review, it was determined that facility staff failed to follow doctor's orders and arrange a psychiatric evaluation of a resident who qualified for a professiona...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and medical records review, it was determined that facility staff failed to follow doctor's orders and arrange a psychiatric evaluation of a resident who qualified for a professional evaluation from psychiatric services. The findings include: On July 13, 2017 at 10:45 A.M. a review of Resident #92's medical records was conducted. It was revealed that the doctor's order for a psychiatric evaluation and follow ups was never ordered by the facility. The Order was written on April 25, 2017 as Please consult psychiatric for eval and follow ups. A phone interview with the Medical Director revealed that the order was never followed through by the facility. The Unit Manager of the South Wing was made aware. Failure to follow doctor's orders for professional resource lead to a delay in an ordered medical evaluation for the resident.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0371 (Tag F0371)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview of staff, it was determined that facility staff failed to maintain equipment and prepare foods in a manner that ensures a safe and sanitary food service. The finding...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview of staff, it was determined that facility staff failed to maintain equipment and prepare foods in a manner that ensures a safe and sanitary food service. The findings include: On initial tour on July 10, 2017 at 9:45 AM, the drain for the ice machine was directly connected to the waste floor drain. This was verified by interview of the Dietary Manager. An air gap is required between food contact equipment and the sewage disposal system to prevent contamination in case of sewage backup. On July 12, 2017, at 1:15 PM, the walk in freezer thermometers (two) read 22- 24 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The individual ice cream cups were soft, revealing that they were partly melted. The Dietary Manager voluntarily discarded the ice cream cups. In the walk in refrigerator, a large cooked piece of leftover roast beef was observed with a cook date of July 10, 2017. The Dietary Manager stated that she did not have forms to record cooling temperatures and had not monitored the cooling of the meat. Interview of the cook indicated that he used ice baths to cool cooked foods, which is not adequate for cooling large pieces of meat. Proper cooling of meats may include ice baths, but additionally, the meats must be cut into portions three inches thick or less. Interview of the [NAME] and Dietary Manager revealed that the HACCP (food safety plan) was not available at that time. This plan, approved by the local health department, provides guidance on safe food preparation.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Maryland.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Maryland facilities.
Concerns
  • • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Larkin Chase Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LARKIN CHASE CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Maryland, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Larkin Chase Center Staffed?

CMS rates LARKIN CHASE CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Larkin Chase Center?

State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at LARKIN CHASE CENTER during 2017 to 2022. These included: 15 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.

Who Owns and Operates Larkin Chase Center?

LARKIN CHASE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by GENESIS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 38 residents (about 32% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BOWIE, Maryland.

How Does Larkin Chase Center Compare to Other Maryland Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maryland, LARKIN CHASE CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Larkin Chase Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Larkin Chase Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LARKIN CHASE CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Maryland. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Larkin Chase Center Stick Around?

LARKIN CHASE CENTER has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Larkin Chase Center Ever Fined?

LARKIN CHASE CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Larkin Chase Center on Any Federal Watch List?

LARKIN CHASE CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.

LARKIN CHASE CENTER

15005 HEALTH CENTER DRIVE, BOWIE, MD 20716 | (301) 805-6070

B+
Trust Grade (85/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
16
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star staffing

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025