District of Columbia ›Washington
5255 Loughboro Road NW, Washington, DC 20016 (opens Google Maps) · The District County · (202) 537-4000· 45 certified beds · avg 31 residents/day · certified since May 27, 1994 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →
⚠ The most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.
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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 6, 2024 · F-0740 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety.
Why it matters: A resident's untreated mental health needs can worsen and take a toll on their physical health too.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Mar 4, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 23, 2021 · F-0686
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jun 22, 2021 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 34 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0610
The 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. · from a complaint F-0756
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. · from a complaint F-0880
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Aug 14, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0756 |
| Aug 14, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Feb 6, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · from a complaint · F-0740 |
| Feb 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint · F-0745 |
| Feb 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Jan 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2021 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Apr 23, 2021 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Apr 23, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · F-0557 |
| Apr 23, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2021 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Apr 23, 2021 | 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 |
| Sep 13, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| Sep 13, 2019 | 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 |
| Sep 13, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Sep 13, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558 |
| Sep 13, 2019 | 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 |
| Sep 13, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Sep 13, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0756 |
| Sep 13, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0757 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 12).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2021 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 6 | 1 | J ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $8,827.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2024 | Fine | $8,827 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | District of Columbia avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.61 | 4.76 | 3.95 | top 27% in District of Columbia; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 3.82 | 1.48 | 0.69 | top 7% in District of Columbia; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.93 | 4.35 | 3.50 | top 27% in District of Columbia; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 3.61 | 1.28 | 0.48 | top 7% in District of Columbia; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 26.0 | 34.0 | 45.8 | top 27% in District of Columbia; top 8% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 18.2 | 32.5 | 42.9 | top 7% in District of Columbia; top 12% 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 6.48, RN 4.41, weekend 5.69.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (6.48 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: —/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Sibley Mem Hosp Renaissance. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
Non profit - Other
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 11/01/2010 |
| Abele, Jennifer | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2020 |
| Abele, Jennifer | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2020 |
| Ammerman, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/09/2013 |
| Ammerman, Joshua | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/09/2013 |
| Argo, Archie | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/22/2004 |
| Argo, Archie | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/22/2004 |
| Barron, Jessica | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Barron, Jessica | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Barton, William | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/23/1997 |
| Barton, William | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/23/1997 |
| Bulen, James | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Bulen, James | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Carpenter, Carolyn | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/24/2020 |
| Carpenter, Carolyn | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/24/2020 |
| Cecil, Guy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2023 |
| Cecil, Guy | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2023 |
| Cernea, Andrei | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2021 |
| Cernea, Andrei | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2021 |
| Crickenberger, Brian | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
Showing 20 of 79 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 59 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lisner Louise Dickson Hurthome | 2.3 mi | Washington, DC | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Forest Hills of DC | 2.5 mi | Washington, DC | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Arleigh Burke Pavilion | 2.6 mi | MC Lean, VA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Cherrydale Health & Rehabilitation Center | 2.7 mi | Arlington, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Ingleside at Rock Creek | 3.1 mi | Washington, DC | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Vierra Falls Church | 3.5 mi | Falls Church, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Stoddard Baptist Nursing Home | 3.6 mi | Washington, DC | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Inspire Rehabilitation and Health Center LLC | 3.8 mi | Washington, DC | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Jefferson | 3.8 mi | Arlington, VA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Knollwood HSC | 3.9 mi | Washington, DC | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Carriage Hill Bethesda | 4.8 mi | Bethesda, MD | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare at Chevy Chase | 4.9 mi | Chevy Chase, MD | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in The District, DC — 17 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
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 095030.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details