MarylandBaltimore

Little Sisters of the Poor

601 Maiden Choice Lane, Baltimore, MD 21228 · Baltimore County · 20 certified beds · avg 17 residents/day · certified since May 1, 2010

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
8.95
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (25)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Mar 30, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Mar 30, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Mar 30, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 30, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Mar 30, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Mar 30, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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.
Mar 30, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Mar 30, 2023C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Jan 4, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jan 4, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (22 → 1).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
201920D
2023220F
202510D

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityMaryland avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)8.953.833.95top 1% in Maryland; top 1% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours2.090.830.69top 4% in Maryland; top 2% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing7.933.433.50top 1% in Maryland; top 1% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)1.400.630.48top 3% in Maryland; top 2% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)33.340.245.8top 29% in Maryland; top 20% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)25.038.742.9top 19% in Maryland; top 20% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 7.25, RN 1.69, weekend 6.42. Staffing rating: 5/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Individual

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Brusche, DeborahIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2021
Brusche, DeborahIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2021
Kleibusch, LoisIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2024
Kleibusch, LoisIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2024
Piche, MarieIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2021
Piche, MarieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2021
Pocock, BarbaraIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2021
Pocock, BarbaraIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2021

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Charlestown Community INC0.1 miCatonsville, MD★★★★★4/5
Ridgeway Rehab Center1.0 miCatonsville, MD★★★☆☆3/5
Westgate Hills Rehab & Healthcare Ctr1.1 miBaltimore, MD★★☆☆☆2/5
Future Care Irvington1.4 miBaltimore, MD★★★★☆4/5
Frederick Villa Healthcare1.4 miCatonsville, MD★☆☆☆☆1/5
Autumn Lake Healthcare at Catonsville1.6 miCatonsville, MD★★☆☆☆1/5
Forest Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation Ctr1.6 miCatonsville, MD★☆☆☆☆1/5
Carroll Park Healthcare1.8 miBaltimore, MD—/5abuseSFF
St. Joseph's Nursing Home1.9 miCatonsville, MD★★★★★5/5
St. Elizabeth Rehabilitation & Nursing Center1.9 miBaltimore, MD★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Autumn Lake Healthcare at Summit Park2.3 miCatonsville, MD★★★☆☆2/5
Maryland Baptist Aged Home3.0 miBaltimore, MD★★★☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Baltimore →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 215354.