How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Future Care Pineview
9106 Pineview Lane, Clinton, MD 20735 (opens Google Maps) · Prince Georges County · (410) 880-4353· 180 certified beds · avg 165 residents/day · certified since May 28, 1999 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: FUTURE CARE/LIFEBRIDGE HEALTH (18 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 7, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
2.92
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint F-0573
The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint F-0580
The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint F-0690
View all 35 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint · F-0573 |
| Jan 13, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Oct 22, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint · F-0690 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · F-0947 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff. · F-0886 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · F-0600 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · F-0800 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888 |
| Oct 26, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Jan 16, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Jan 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Jan 16, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (19 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 19
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2022 | 19 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 2 | 0 | D |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMaryland averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 2.92
Maryland average: 3.83
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.81
Maryland average: 0.83
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.60
Maryland average: 3.43
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Maryland avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 2.92 | 3.83 | 3.95 | bottom 4% in Maryland; bottom 11% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.69 | top 33% in Maryland; top 26% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.60 | 3.43 | 3.50 | bottom 4% in Maryland; bottom 13% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.91 | 0.63 | 0.48 | top 15% in Maryland; top 8% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.2 | 40.2 | 45.8 | top 46% in Maryland; top 34% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 40.8 | 38.7 | 42.9 | bottom 40% in Maryland; top 49% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 4.14, RN 1.15, weekend 3.68.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.14 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Future Care Pineview. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alvin Powers Residuary Trust Fbo Jeffrey Powers | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2025 |
| Alvin Powers Residuary Trust Fbo Mark Powers | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Jeffrey Attmon Trust Ua DTD 122686 Attmon Phyllis Ttee | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 8% | 06/01/2009 |
| Powers, Jeffrey | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2025 |
| Powers, Mark | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 12% | 12/01/2025 |
| Alvin Powers Residuary Trust Fbo Jeffrey Powers | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2025 |
| Alvin Powers Residuary Trust Fbo Mark Powers | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2025 |
| Attman, Gary | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Attman, Gary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Attman, Jeffrey | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Attman, Leonard | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Attman, Leonard | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Clinton Nursing Home Limited Partnership | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Finglass, Brian | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Finglass, Brian | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Finglass, Brian | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Future Care Health & Management of Pineview INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
| Future Care Health & Management of Pineview INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/19/2025 |
| Future Care Health and Management Corporation | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/19/2025 |
| Gilden, Shellye | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2009 |
Showing 20 of 29 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 9 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Future Care/Lifebridge Health — 18 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Future Care Sandtown-Winchester — Baltimore, MD · overall 4/5
- Good Samaritan Nursing Home Operator, LLC — Baltimore, MD · overall 4/5
- Levindale Hebrew Ger Ctr & HSP — Baltimore, MD · overall 2/5
- Lochearn Nursing Home, LLC — Baltimore, MD · overall 5/5
- Atlee Hill Health and Rehab Center — Westminster, MD · overall 2/5
- Courtland, LLC — Baltimore, MD · overall 1/5abuse
- Future Care Annapolis — Annapolis, MD · overall —/5
- Future Care Canton Harbor — Baltimore, MD · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 17 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "If I ask for a copy of my family member's records, how quickly will I get them and what does it cost?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "What specific training do your nurse aides complete in dementia care and abuse prevention, and how often is it refreshed?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Maryland midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 39% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 29 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 59 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hidden Waters Rehabilitation and Wellness Center | 0.2 mi | Clinton, MD | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Bradford Oaks | 1.2 mi | Clinton, MD | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Forestville Rehabilitation and Wellness Center | 5.8 mi | Forestville, MD | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Ft Washington Rehabilitation and Wellness Center | 6.1 mi | Fort Washington, MD | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Serenity Rehabilitation and Health Center LLC | 7.1 mi | Washington, DC | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Harborside Health & Rehabilitation | 7.9 mi | Washington, DC | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Capitol City Rehab and Healthcare Center | 7.9 mi | Washington, DC | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Largo Nursing and Rehabiliation Center | 9.2 mi | Glenarden, MD | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| George Washington Health & Rehabilitation | 9.4 mi | Alexandria, VA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Deanwood Rehabilitation and Wellness Center | 9.5 mi | Washington, DC | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Future Care Capital Region | 9.9 mi | Landover, MD | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Mount Vernon Healthcare Center | 10.4 mi | Alexandria, VA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Prince Georges, MD — 19 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Larkin Chase Center — Bowie, MD · overall 5/5
- Riderwood Village — Silver Spring, MD · overall 5/5
- Sacred Heart Home INC — Hyattsville, MD · overall 5/5
- Sterling Care Hillhaven — Adelphi, MD · overall 5/5
- Villa Rosa Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC — Mitchellville, MD · overall 2/5
- White Oak Rehabilitation and Nursing Center — Hyattsville, MD · overall 1/5abuse
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 215328.