Maryland ›Takoma Park

Sligo Creek Healthcare

7525 Carroll Avenue, Takoma Park, MD 20912 · Montgomery County · 102 certified beds · avg 95 residents/day · certified since Dec 9, 1999

Part of chain: ENGAGE HEALTHCARE (5 facilities, chain avg rating 1.5★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$12,740
Fines, last 3 years
3.51
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Oct 21, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Oct 16, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

All citations in the current public record (48)

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 8, 2026D · 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. · from a complaint
Jun 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Jun 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Jun 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint
Jun 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jun 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint
Oct 21, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Oct 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint
Oct 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 20, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 20, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Feb 20, 2025E · 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.
Feb 20, 2025E · 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. · from a complaint
Feb 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status.
Feb 20, 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.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 20, 2025D · 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.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule.
Feb 20, 2025D · 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.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
Feb 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies.
Feb 20, 2025D · 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.
Nov 20, 2020E · 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.
Nov 20, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Nov 20, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 20, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Nov 20, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 20, 2020B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
May 10, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 10, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 10, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
May 10, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
May 10, 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.
May 10, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
May 10, 2019C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
May 10, 2019C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
May 10, 2019C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies.
May 10, 2019B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 23).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2019100D
202060E
2025261J ▲
202660D

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)

1 fine totaling $12,740, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Oct 21, 2025Fine$12,740
Feb 20, 2025Payment Denial17 days from Apr 6, 2025

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)3.513.833.95bottom 49% in Maryland; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.670.830.69bottom 48% in Maryland; top 39% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.273.433.50top 45% in Maryland; bottom 45% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.490.630.48bottom 48% in Maryland; top 34% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)35.640.245.8top 35% in Maryland; top 25% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)21.438.742.9top 14% in Maryland; top 16% 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 3.40, RN 0.65, weekend 3.16. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Lighten, JakeIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest50%08/01/2023
Paneth, JackIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest50%08/01/2023
Woodside Park MD Holdco LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%08/01/2023
Akinseye, HenryIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2023
Lighten, JakeIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2023
Paneth, JackIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2023

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
White Oak Rehabilitation and Nursing Center1.3 miHyattsville, MD★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Althea Woodland Nursing Home1.9 miSilver Spring, MD★★★★☆4/5
Adelphi Nursing and Rehabilitation Center2.0 miAdelphi, MD★★☆☆☆2/5
Fox Chase Healthcare2.4 miSilver Spring, MD★☆☆☆☆1/5
Complete Care at Hyattsville2.5 miHyattsville, MD★★☆☆☆1/5
Ascension Living Carroll Manor2.5 miWashington, DC★★☆☆☆1/5
Woodside Rehab & Nursing2.7 miSilver Spring, MD★★★☆☆3/5
Knollwood HSC2.8 miWashington, DC★★★★☆3/5
Sacred Heart Home INC2.9 miHyattsville, MD★★★★★5/5
The HSC Pediatric Skilled Nursing Facility3.0 miWashington, DC★★★☆☆4/5
Jeanne Jugan Residence3.0 miWashington, DC★★★★★5/5
Crescent Cities Nursing & Rehabilitation Center3.5 miRiverdale, MD★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Takoma Park →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 215327.