BROADMEAD

13801 YORK ROAD, COCKEYSVILLE, MD 21030 (443) 578-8020
Non profit - Corporation 70 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#7 of 219 in MD
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: March 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Broadmead in Cockeysville, Maryland has received a Trust Grade of A, which means it is considered excellent and highly recommended for families seeking a nursing home. It ranks #7 out of 219 facilities in Maryland, placing it in the top tier, and #2 of 43 in Baltimore County, indicating that only one other local option is rated higher. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2019 to 4 in 2024. Staffing is a strength here, with a perfect 5-star rating and RN coverage that exceeds 93% of state facilities, though the staff turnover rate stands at 48%, which is average for Maryland. Importantly, there have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign. On the downside, specific incidents have raised concerns. For example, one resident missed 11 doses of a critical antibiotic due to a medication error, and another resident's medication was mistakenly packaged for delivery despite being on hold. Additionally, the facility was slow to act on a pharmacy recommendation to discontinue unnecessary medications for another resident. Overall, while Broadmead has strong ratings and no fines, the increasing number of concerns and specific incidents require attention.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Maryland
#7/219
Top 3%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Maryland facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 108 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
○ Average
10 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2019: 2 issues
2024: 4 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 48%

Near Maryland avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 10 deficiencies on record

Mar 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received medicatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, and staff interview it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents received medications in accordance with professional standards of practice. This was evident for 1 resident (#10) out of 17 residents reviewed during the survey. The findings include the following: Review of Resident #10's medical record on 03/20/2024 at 09:30 AM revealed that the resident was discharged from the hospital and admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On the hospital discharge summary, it stated that Resident (#10) was to be given medication, Cefdinir, twice a day for 9 days as a course of antibiotic therapy and Resident (#10) was to begin Cefdinir on 02/21/2024. Review of facility investigation on 03/20/2024 at 11:00 AM revealed that Resident (#10) did not receive Cefdinir until 02/26/2024 and therefore missed 11 doses of this medication. During the interview with the Director of Nursing (#2) on 03/20/24 at 11:15 AM he/she confirmed the medication error and findings in the facility investigation. All concerns were shared with the Administration Team at the time of exit on 3/21/24 at 2:00 PM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that Pharmacy continued to prepackage a medication for Resident (# 29) after the medication was placed on hold. This occurred for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interviews, it was determined that Pharmacy continued to prepackage a medication for Resident (# 29) after the medication was placed on hold. This occurred for 1 of 4 residents observed during the medication pass. The findings include: During observation of a medication pass on 3/20/24 at 9:00am with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) (Staff # 11) revealed that Resident #29 had Lasix 40mg in his/her prepackaged medications dated 3/20/24. Staff #11 stated, Lasix is in the package to be administered however, I know the medication is on hold. Review of the medical record on 3/20/24 at 11:30am revealed the medication was placed on hold on 3/15/24 at 9:30am. During an interview with the DON (Staff #2) on 3/20/24 at 1:30pm, she stated medications are delivered to the facility every 2 days for each resident and the Lasix should not have been in the package with Resident #29's medications. During a follow up interview on 3/20/24 at 2:15pm, the DON stated she spoke with pharmacy and the medication was being removed. All concerns were shared with the Administration Team at the time of exit on 3/21/24 at 2:00 PM.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address a pharmacy recommendation in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #20) of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to address a pharmacy recommendation in a timely manner. This was evident for 1 (Resident #20) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include: On 3/19/24 at 5:07 PM, record review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the following pharmacist recommendation dated 1/25/24, Please consider discontinuing PRN artificial tears and melatonin for no use in > 6 months. Furthermore, the document titled Letter to Physician, noting the response of the pharmacist's Recommendation and Medical Regimen Review (MRR) date of 1/25/24, contained a handwritten response of done. On 3/19/24 at 5:10 PM, record review of physician's orders in the electronic health record (EHR), revealed Resident #20 was ordered Artificial Tears Ophthalmic Ointment 83-15 % (White Petrolatum-Mineral Oil); Instill 1 application in both eyes every 24 hours as needed for Dry Eyes and Melatonin Oral Tablet 3 MG (Melatonin); Give 1 tablet by mouth every 24 hours as needed for Insomnia Give at bedtime. Both medications were ordered on 7/6/23. The discontinuation date listed in the physician's orders section of the EHR for both medications was 2/26/24. On 3/20/24 at 11:57 AM, further record review of Resident #20's medical record revealed the exact same pharmacy recommendation from January 2024 that was dated 2/24/24 stating, Please consider discontinuing PRN artificial tears and melatonin for no use in > 6 months. In addition, the aforementioned recommendation was listed on a document titled, Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review Active Recommendations Lacking a Final Response, also dated 2/24/24. Furthermore, the document titled Letter to Physician, noting the response of the pharmacist's Recommendation and Medical Regimen Review (MRR) date of 2/24/24, contained a signature from the Medical Director #5, and a date of 2/26/24 with the Agree box checked. On 3/20/24 at 12:01 PM, in an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated the process for Medication Regimen Review (MRR) was as follows: the pharmacist sends the recommendations to the DON who sends them to the appropriate discipline. The pharmacist recommendations on the skilled unit are addressed within 24 hours and the pharmacist recommendations on the long term care unit are addressed before the next MRR. On 3/21/24 at 9:57AM in an interview with Staff #3 (who during January and February 2024 held the title of Interim DON), spoke with Medical Director #5 and stated that she received the MRR via email, and Staff #12 was to address it for her, but did not. When the exact same recommendation from January 2024, showed up again on the February 2024 MRR, Medical Director #5 discontinued the medications at that time. The following concerns were shared with the Administration Team at the time of exit on 3/21/24 at 2:00 PM.
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 staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. The findings include: An initial tour of the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, it was determined the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety. The findings include: An initial tour of the facility Kitchen was completed on 03/18/24 at 08:10 AM with Staff (#8) and the following items were found to be missing an expiration date on the product: 1) Two cans of black-eyed peas 2) Two boxes of classic salt 3) Several spice containers that included ground ginger 4) Two containers of avocado smash During the tour interview on 03/18/24 at 08:25 AM with Staff (#8), he/she stated that the above items did not have an expiration date on them and he/she would check on these items to be sure that they were able to be used and not expired.
Apr 2019 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the responsible party for Resident (#34) of an increase in medication and obtain consent for that in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to notify the responsible party for Resident (#34) of an increase in medication and obtain consent for that increase. This was evident for 1 of 5 residents selected for review of unnecessary medications during the survey process. The findings include: Medical record review for Resident #34 revealed the resident was seen by psychiatric nurse practitioner on 4/10/19. At that time, it was ordered: increase Lexapro to 15 milligrams by mouth at hour of sleep if OK with family. Lexapro is used to treat depression and anxiety. It works by helping to restore the balance of a certain natural substance (serotonin) in the brain. Further record review revealed the order for the Lexapro was written and initiated for Resident #34; however, the facility staff failed to notify the resident's family of the increase in the Lexapro and obtain consent for the medication increase. Interview with the social worker on 4/19/19 at 11:20 AM revealed the facility staff failed to notify the family of Resident #34 of an increase in medication and obtain for consent for that increase. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 4/19/19 at 1:30 PM confirmed the facility staff failed to notify the responsible party for Resident #34 for an increase in medication and obtain consent for that increase prior to initiation of that increase of Lexapro.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to address and notify the physician of results of an abnormal blood sugar level for Resident (#24). This was e...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and interview, it was determined the facility staff failed to address and notify the physician of results of an abnormal blood sugar level for Resident (#24). This was evident for 1 of 27 residents selected for review during the annual survey process. The findings include: Resident #24 was admitted to the facility with diabetes which requires the body's blood sugar levels to be controlled by medications. A blood sugar level below 60 requires more sugar to be given to the resident and if above 300 requires extra medications to be given to lower the level. On 1/19/19 Resident #24's physician ordered the nursing staff to notify him/her if the blood sugar levels dropped below 60 or greater than 500. On 4/8/19 at 9 PM Resident #24's blood sugar level was documented on the medication administration as 534 and on 4/9/19 at 7 AM the level was 588. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing on 4/19/19 at 10:30 AM confirmed that on 4/8/19 at 9PM, and 4/9/19, the nursing staff did not document on the medication administration record, the treatment administration record, or the progress note that the physician was notified of the blood sugar results over 500 and any treatment given.
Dec 2017 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility staff failed to document accurate assessments for Resident (# 33) and Resident (# 39) on the MDS. This was evident for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interview it was determined the facility staff failed to document accurate assessments for Resident (# 33) and Resident (# 39) on the MDS. This was evident for 2 of 26 residents selected for review during the investigation stage of the survey process. The findings include the following: The MDS is a federally-mandated assessment tool that helps nursing home staff gathers information on each resident's strengths and needs. Information collected drives resident care planning decisions. MDS assessments need to be accurate to ensure each resident receives the care they need. Categories of MDS (Minimum Data Set) are: Cognitive patterns, Communication and hearing patterns, Vision patterns, Physical functioning and structural problems which includes the assessment of range of motion, Continence, Psychosocial well-being, Mood and behavior patterns, Activity pursuit patterns, Disease diagnosis, Other health conditions, Oral/nutritional status, Oral/dental status, Skin condition, Medication use and Treatments and procedures. At the end of the MDS assessment the interdisciplinary team develops the plan of care for the resident to obtain the optimal care for the resident. 1. Review of Resident #33 MDS, with an ARD of 11/23/17, was inaccurate. Section N 0410, Medications Received (C), antidepressant coded that the resident did not received for 7 days. Review of Resident # 33 November 2017 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented that the resident received the Zoloft during the lookback period. 2. Review of Resident #39 quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 11/30/17, was inaccurate. Section P 0200, Alarms (E), Wander/elopement alarm coded that the resident did not have an alarm for the 7 days. Review of Resident # 39 November 2017 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) documented that the resident had the wander/elopement alarm during the lookback period. Interview with the DON on 12/20/17 at 10:30 am confirmed the facility staff failed to accurately code the MDS for Resident # 33 and Resident # 39 assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to obtain laboratory blood tests as recommended by the Consultant Pharmacist for a resident (#34). ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and staff interview, it was determined that the facility staff failed to obtain laboratory blood tests as recommended by the Consultant Pharmacist for a resident (#34). This was evident for 1 of 26 residents selected for review during the investigation stage of the survey process. The findings include: Medical record review of Resident #34 revealed on 11/17/17 the Consultant Pharmacist completed a Medication Regimen Review and recommended the Resident have a BMP (Basic Metabolic Panel) and a Vitamin D level. The BMP is done to evaluate: kidney function, blood acid/base balance and blood sugar levels. The Vitamin D level is to evaluate if there is a Vitamin D level deficiency. Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to a host of illnesses and conditions, from heart disease and diabetes to certain types of cancer. On 11/21/17 the Resident's physician agreed with the Consultant Pharmacist's recommendation. Further record review revealed that the facility staff failed to obtain the laboratory blood tests as recommended by the Consultant Pharmacist. After surveyor intervention the laboratory blood tests were obtained on 12/20/17. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 12/21/17 at 8:00 AM confirmed the facility staff failed to obtain laboratory blood tests as recommended by the Consultant Pharmacist.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records related to orders and behavior monitoring. This was ev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record review and interview with facility staff, it was determined that the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records related to orders and behavior monitoring. This was evident for 2 of the 26 residents (#355 and #39) reviewed in the second stage of the survey process. Findings include: 1. Based on staff interview and review of the medical record it was determined that the facility failed to obtain an order for the care and management of Resident #355's Foley catheter (A Foley catheter is a thin, sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine). Review of the medical record on 12/19/17 at 10:15 AM revealed that on 12/11/17 Resident #355 was sent to the emergency room for evaluation following three episodes of Hematuria (Blood in the urine) within two days. Resident #355 returned to the facility later in the day on 12/11/17 with a foley catheter in place. Further review of the medical record on 12/19/17 revealed that there was no physician's order written for the care and management of the foley catheter. In an interview on 12/19/17 at 10:42 AM the unit nurse supervisor was made aware of this concern and asked if there was any additional orders or hospital discharge summary available. Following review of Resident #355's chart the unit nurse supervisor confirmed that the order had not been written for the foley care and no additional documentation was presented through the remainder of the survey. At that time the unit nurse supervisor called Resident #355's physician and obtained a verbal order for foley care and management. 2. A medical record is the official documentation for a healthcare organization. As such, it must be maintained in a manner that follows applicable regulations, accreditation standards, professional practice standards, and legal standards. All entries to the record should be legible and accurate. Medical record review for Resident # 39 revealed a Psychoactive Medication Monthly Flow record, which target behavioral symptoms such as disruptive behavior, physically abusive and wondering. The facility staff documented that the Resident did not display any behavioral symptoms from 12/01/17 thru 12/19/17 on the flow record. Further review of the Resident's # 39 medical record reveal documentation regarding his/her behavior in the Progress notes on 12/4, 12/11, 12/14, and 12/19/2017 that the resident had disruptive target behavior. Interview with the Director of Nursing on 12/19/17 at 1:30 PM confirmed the facility staff failed to maintain the medical record in the most complete and accurate form for Resident #39.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure an ophthalmology consult was obtained as requested by a resident (#31). This was true for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review and staff interview it was determined that the facility staff failed to ensure an ophthalmology consult was obtained as requested by a resident (#31). This was true for 1 of 26 residents selected for review during the investigation stage of the survey process. The findings include: A review of Resident #31's clinical record revealed that the resident told the Hospice nurse on 5/1/17 that he/she wanted to see an ophthalmologist. There was no evidence in the clinical record that the ophthalmology consultation was obtained. Staff #1 was interviewed on 12/21/17 at 11:25 AM. She confirmed the consultation was not obtained. She stated that the hospice nurse did not tell the facility nursing staff that the resident requested to see an ophthalmologist and that nursing staff missed the hospice nursing note. She stated that primary physician was called after surveyor intervention and the physician spoke with the resident.
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 A (90/100). 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
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Broadmead's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns BROADMEAD 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 Broadmead Staffed?

CMS rates BROADMEAD's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Maryland average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Broadmead?

State health inspectors documented 10 deficiencies at BROADMEAD during 2017 to 2024. These included: 10 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Broadmead?

BROADMEAD is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 70 certified beds and approximately 35 residents (about 50% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COCKEYSVILLE, Maryland.

How Does Broadmead Compare to Other Maryland Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Maryland, BROADMEAD's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Broadmead?

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 Broadmead Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BROADMEAD 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 Broadmead Stick Around?

BROADMEAD has a staff turnover rate of 48%, which is about average for Maryland nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Broadmead Ever Fined?

BROADMEAD 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 Broadmead on Any Federal Watch List?

BROADMEAD 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.

BROADMEAD

13801 YORK ROAD, COCKEYSVILLE, MD 21030 | (443) 578-8020

A
Trust Grade (90/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
10
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 5-star staffing
  • 5-star quality

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025