Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
A standard survey is most likely before around October 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 Charlotte Hall Veterans Home during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with advanced neurological and swallowing disorders, dependent on staff for care and at risk for dehydration, was not adequately monitored or provided with sufficient hydration during a period of high indoor temperatures following a cooling system outage. Despite protocols for heat emergencies, staff failed to document fluid intake or monitor the resident's condition, leading to the resident being found nonresponsive and requiring hospital treatment for heat exhaustion and dehydration.
During a planned maintenance outage of the cooling system, the facility failed to maintain safe and comfortable temperatures on two care wings, with temperatures exceeding 81°F for approximately 48 hours and reaching over 90°F in some areas. Portable cooling units and fans were insufficient, temperature monitoring was inconsistently documented, and the County EMA was not notified promptly. Staff monitored for heat-related illness and provided hydration, but lacked specific assignments and consistent documentation, and did not ensure all fluid consistencies were available for residents with special needs.
A resident with severe mental impairment and a court-appointed medical guardian experienced a significant change in condition and was sent to the hospital without immediate notification to the guardian, as required by the care plan. Staff interviews confirmed the expectation to notify the guardian, but documentation and communication were lacking due to an agency nurse not following policy.
Failure to Monitor and Hydrate Resident During Heat Event Resulting in Harm
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice for a resident at risk for dehydration during a period of elevated indoor temperatures. When the cooling system servicing the resident's unit was taken out of service for maintenance, indoor temperatures rose above 81 degrees for an extended period, with some readings exceeding 90 degrees. Despite the facility enacting a 'Code Purple' for severe hot weather, there was a lack of consistent temperature monitoring and documentation, and the facility could not provide temperature logs for a significant portion of the affected period. The resident involved had diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease, dementia, and dysphagia, and was assessed as being dependent on staff for most activities of daily living. The care plan identified the resident as being at risk for dehydration, with interventions to observe for signs and symptoms of dehydration and to encourage thickened fluid intake. However, during the period of elevated temperatures, the resident's fluid intake was inadequately documented, with only minimal amounts recorded and no fluids documented on the day the resident was found nonresponsive. There were also no nursing progress notes entered during the critical period, and staff interviews confirmed that routine charting of hydration was not completed during the Code Purple. On the morning following the period of high temperatures, the resident was found nonresponsive with an elevated temperature and was sent to the hospital, where they were treated for heat exhaustion and dehydration. Medical staff confirmed that the resident was at increased risk for dehydration due to their medical conditions and thickened liquid requirement, and that the lack of hydration and monitoring contributed to the resident's significant change in condition. The facility's failure to ensure sufficient hydration and monitoring during the heat event resulted in actual harm to the resident.
Failure to Maintain Safe and Comfortable Temperatures During Planned Cooling System Outage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe and comfortable environment for residents on two of its care wings during a planned maintenance outage of the cooling system. The cooling tower servicing the A and B wings was taken offline for scheduled maintenance, and although portable cooling units were rented and placed in the affected areas, they were insufficient to keep temperatures below 81 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures in the building exceeded 81 degrees for more than four hours, triggering a Code Purple, and remained consistently above this threshold for approximately 48 hours, with some areas reaching over 90 degrees. Temperature monitoring was not consistently documented, as logs were unavailable for the initial period of the outage, and temperature checks were only conducted in hallways, not in resident rooms, which were reported to be even hotter. The facility's emergency procedure for severe hot weather, Code Purple, required specific actions such as moving residents to cooler areas, monitoring for heat-related illnesses, and notifying emergency management agencies. However, the County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) was not notified until the day after the Code Purple was enacted, despite the event being a planned outage. Staff were educated to monitor residents for signs of heat exhaustion and dehydration and to provide additional hydration, but there were no specific assignments for monitoring hydration, and fluid intake documentation was inconsistent. The facility also did not ensure that different consistencies of fluids were readily available for residents with special needs during the event. Interviews with facility staff and management revealed that the response to the heat event was reactive rather than proactive. The Director of Maintenance and Safety and Security Director acknowledged that temperature monitoring was not systematically logged at first and that the portable cooling units and fans were not sufficient to maintain comfortable conditions. The decision to move residents to a vacant, cooler unit was delayed and ultimately not carried out because the cooling system was restored. The facility identified several shortcomings in their response, including the need for better preparation of vacant units for potential relocation and improved documentation and provision of fluids, but these were only recognized after the event.
Failure to Notify Guardian of Significant Change in Condition
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to immediately notify a resident's court-appointed medical guardian when the resident experienced a significant change in condition and subsequent deterioration of a life-threatening condition. The resident, who had severe mental impairment and was dependent on staff for activities of daily living, was sent to the hospital for evaluation after being found with elevated respiration and unresponsiveness. Documentation showed that the medical provider was notified and orders were given to send the resident to the hospital, but there was no evidence that the guardian was contacted at the time of the transfer, as required by the resident's care plan. Interviews with facility staff, including an LPN, the DON, a social worker, and the assistant administrator, confirmed that the expectation was to notify the resident's representative or guardian immediately in the event of a significant change in condition. The guardian expressed disappointment at not being informed when the resident was sent to the hospital. The lack of documentation and failure to notify the guardian was attributed to an agency nurse not following facility policy.
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 118 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — 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 Charlotte Hall
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green Acres Nursing And Rehab | 10.4 mi | — | 15 | 0 |
| Calvert County Nursing Ctr. | 11.3 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Waldorf Center | 11.9 mi | — | 5 | 0 |
| Complete Care At Laplata Llc | 12.1 mi | — | 11 | 0 |
| Restore Health Rehabilitation Center | 12.5 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Charlotte Hall Veterans Home.
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.