Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
A standard survey is most likely before around November 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Autumn Lake Healthcare At Cherry Lane during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and significant medical history was care planned as needing assistance with ADLs and being dependent for mobility, but the care plan was not updated to specify the current transfer level after PT documented that the resident required maximal assistance of one person and could perform most of the transfer activity. Floor staff, including an LPN and a GNA, continued to use a mechanical lift with two staff for transfers, and the resident and attending physician both described ongoing lift use. The MDS coordinator acknowledged the resident had improved and that the facility was behind on updating care plans, while the Rehab Director reported communicating functional changes in morning meetings but not participating in care plan or Kardex updates and was unaware staff still used the lift. The DON stated that care plans were expected to be current and revised timely, but this had not occurred for this resident’s transfer and mobility needs.
A resident with spinal stenosis, a lumbar compression fracture, and moderate cognitive impairment was care planned as dependent on two staff and a mechanical lift for transfers, even after PT documented that the resident could perform most of the transfer with only one-person, weight-bearing assistance. The resident’s spouse and a GNA reported that the resident could stand with staff help and no longer required a mechanical lift, but the comprehensive care plan was not revised to reflect these current transfer needs. The MDS coordinator acknowledged the facility was behind on updating care plans and could not explain the lack of revision despite IDT discussions, while leadership stated they expected timely, accurate care plan updates and effective staff communication.
Failure to Maintain Current, Person-Centered Transfer Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to develop and maintain a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that accurately specified the level of assistance required for a resident’s transfers and mobility. The resident, admitted with anoxic brain injury, epilepsy, and cardiomyopathy, had a BIMS score of 6 indicating severe cognitive impairment and was coded on the MDS as dependent on staff for transfers. The care plan, initiated at admission, broadly indicated the resident needed assistance with ADLs related to decreased mobility and acute intracranial processes and stated the resident was dependent on staff for mobility/locomotion on and off the unit, but it did not clearly specify the current transfer status or level of assistance required. A PT discharge summary later documented that the resident required minimal assistance of one person for transfers and could perform 75% or more of the activity with weight-bearing assistance from one caregiver. Despite this therapy documentation, interviews showed that floor staff, including an LPN and a GNA, consistently used a mechanical lift with two staff to transfer the resident and reported that the resident did not get out of bed independently. The resident also reported that two staff used a lift to get them out of bed after bathing. The attending physician stated the family needed training on use of the lift in preparation for discharge, indicating ongoing use of the lift. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged the resident had been admitted using a mechanical lift, had improved, and that staff sometimes still used the lift, and further stated the facility was behind on updating care plans. The DON and Rehabilitation Director described a process where therapy communicated functional status changes during morning meetings, but the Rehabilitation Director stated she did not participate in care plan or Kardex updates and was unaware staff continued to use the mechanical lift despite the therapy discharge summary indicating maximal assistance of one person. The DON later stated she expected care plans to be current and revised timely, underscoring that the resident’s care plan had not been updated to reflect the resident’s current transfer needs.
Failure to Update Care Plan for Changed Transfer Needs
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to revise a resident’s comprehensive, person-centered care plan to reflect current transfer needs. The resident was admitted with spinal stenosis and a wedge compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebra and had moderate cognitive impairment, with an MDS indicating a need for partial/moderate assistance for transfers. The care plan, initiated shortly after admission, directed staff to use a mechanical lift with two staff for transfers due to assistance needs with activities of daily living related to the spinal compression fracture and dementia. However, a PT discharge summary later documented that the resident required only a minimum of one person for transfers, could perform 75% or more of the transfer activity, and needed only weight-bearing assistance from one caregiver. Despite this documented improvement, the care plan was not updated to reflect the resident’s current transfer status. The resident’s spouse reported that the resident could stand with staff assistance and transfer out of bed, and a Geriatric Nursing Assistant stated the resident did not require a mechanical lift for transfers. The MDS Coordinator acknowledged that the facility was behind on updating residents’ care plans and could not explain why this resident’s care plan had not been revised, even though transfers were discussed in morning Interdisciplinary Team meetings. The DON stated she expected care plans to be current and revised timely and accurately so staff would know the expected care, and the Administrator stated that staff communication was key so that residents’ care plans would be updated and revised in a timely manner.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 1,534 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 15 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Laurel
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autumn Lake Healthcare At Patuxent River | 1.5 mi | — | 23 | 0 |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare At Oak Manor | 4.9 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Riderwood Village | 5.8 mi | — | 17 | 0 |
| Autumn Lake Healthcare At Silver Spring | 5.9 mi | — | 15 | 0 |
| Fairland Center | 6.3 mi | — | 4 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Autumn Lake Healthcare At Cherry Lane.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.