Future Care Charles Village, LLC

2327 N. CHARLES ST
BALTIMORE, MD 21218
(410) 889-8500

Basic Profile:
  • Located in Baltimore City, Maryland
  • For-profit corporation
  • Certified beds: 109
  • Last Medicare rating: 3 stars

FutureCare Charles Village, in Baltimore, is a unit of FutureCare, a Pasadena, Maryland-based company that operates 14 nursing home facilities in Maryland, including a total of eight in the city of Baltimore. A for-profit organization, it maintains 109 certified beds. Its service offerings include rehabilitation for stroke, cardiac, and orthopedic cases; surgery recovery; and speech therapy. It also provides long-term care and treatment for a range of related conditions. FutureCare has managed and operated this facility since 2005.

Our nursing abuse and neglect lawyers know FutureCare well. In a 2016 landmark appellate case, FutureCare tried to argue that our client could not bring a wrongful death claim in Baltimore County Circuit Court because our client's deceased mother signed an arbitration agreement. Thankfully, the Maryland Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and the lawsuit is back on track.

With so many facilities so close together in Baltimore, these facilities compete with each other. If you were bent on a FutureCare facility (although it is hard to imagine why) this would probably not be your top choice. The keepers of this establishment would differentiate it by its "ornate space, with marble fireplaces and chandeliers." But its Medicare scores are middling. If you're looking for a nursing home, you could do better (and you could do worse).

Law of Averages

With a total of 102 residents at the last official count, FutureCare Charles Village is just below the Maryland state average (107.5 residents) and a bit above the national average (86.2 residents): that is, it was right about in the middle.

The last standard Medicare inspection (July 2015) gave this facility an overall rating of 3 stars - average. Medicare also rated it average for its health inspection and its staffing. On fire safety, this facility was - average. FutureCare Charles Village almost seems to follow the law of averages.

The latest standard health inspection did cite this FutureCare facility for a total of 15 deficiencies - higher than the 11.4 average for Maryland and twice as high as the 7.1 average nationally. (Seven of this facility's 15 deficiencies were for quality of care.) Nonetheless, FutureCare Charles Village got three stars on the health inspection.

It also got three stars on staffing. In terms of total nursing hours per resident per day, this facility fell right in between the Maryland and national averages.

This facility got a 4-star rating on RN staffing, although its RNs spent about 20-30 minutes less time daily per resident than the Maryland and U.S. averages. It also was lower than the state and U.S. averages on residents' daily time with certified nursing assistants and physical therapists, and it was significantly lower than average in terms of time spent by LPNs and LVNs (licensed practical nurses, licensed vocational nurses). In getting an overall 3-star rating for staffing, it may have gotten the benefit of the doubt.

Ups and Downs

This FutureCare facility broke out of the "average" mold with a 4-star (above average) rating for quality measures.

Nursing HomeFor short-stay residents, this facility had a modestly higher rate of successful discharges than average, although its discharged residents were more likely than average to require rehospitalization or a visit to the ER. FutureCare Charles Village did very well on preventing pressure ulcers (bed sores), its 0.5 percent incidence rate being less than half the Maryland and U.S. averages. It also was strongly better than average in giving flu and pneumonia vaccinations, and in limiting the use of antipsychotic meds. But on the measure of residents' reports of moderate to severe pain, this FutureCare facility had a sharply high metric of 25 percent of residents so reporting, versus 13.8 percent for Maryland and 16.4 percent on average nationally.

In quality measures for long-stay residents, this facility beat the state and national averages in 10 of 15 categories, but it did have a few especially negative metrics.

It did especially well with respect to urinary tract infections (less than two-thirds as many as the Maryland and U.S. averages); falls with injury (one-third as many as the state and U.S. averages); and the use of physical restraints (a perfect zero percent). It also resorted less often than average to ongoing catheterization, antianxiety meds, and antipsychotic meds. Its long-term residents were less likely than average to report having pain, but more likely to receive flu and pneumonia vaccinations.

This facility was a bit below average in maintaining long-stay residents' healthy weight levels, their mobility, and their independence in conducting daily activities. The incidence of pressure ulcers among these residents was higher than average. FutureCare Charles Village was notably less successful in maintaining long-stay residents' continence (72.5 percent had bowel or bladder control failure, versus 58.5 percent for Maryland and 46.8 percent nationally). And the depression rate among its long-stay residents (10.8 percent) was twice the national average (5.4 percent) and more than twice the Maryland average (4.7 percent).

FutureCare Charles Village did have a complaint inspection in February 2016, but it concerned only a single complaint, concerning a relatively innocuous bookkeeping matter. This facility has had no federal fines or payment denials in the past three years.

FutureCare Charles Village Competitors

FutureCare Charles Village is one of four FutureCare facilities within a few miles of each other Baltimore. Being so close, and all part of the same company, they nonetheless have notable differences in their Medicare ratings. Let's take a look at them.

  • FutureCare Homewood: This FutureCare facility is about three Baltimore city blocks away from FutureCare Charles Village. You might think they would get the same Medicare scores, but they did not: Homewood ranks mostly above-average (4 stars), compared to the mostly average scores (3 stars) for Charles Village.
  • FutureCare Cold Spring: This facility's main Medicare stats are downright odd: 2 stars overall; abysmal 1 star for its health inspection (whereas FutureCare Charles Village got three stars for each). But the Cold Spring location got perfect 5-star ratings for staffing and quality measures, besting its cross-town sister facility.
  • FutureCare Sandtown: This facility comes closest (of the three FutureCare nearby competitors) to matching the Medicare rankings of FutureCare Charles Village - except that it's actually better than its sister facility on quality measures (5 stars to 4 stars) and better overall (4 stars to 3 stars).

Charles Village and the other FutureCare facilities in Baltimore compete in very proximity with some of the best nursing homes in the nation (5-star Maria Health Care Center) and some of the worst (mostly 1-star Long Green Center).

  • Maria Health Care Center, Inc.: This facility is one of the best in Baltimore: with 5-star Medicare ratings right across the board, Maria Health Care is one of the best in Maryland. FutureCare Charles Village's mostly average ratings come nowhere close to matching this facility's "perfect" scores. It only has 32 beds so not many patients are getting the pleasure of this top rated nursing home.
  • Transitional Care Services at Mercy Medical Center: This small, 30 bed Baltimore facility outscored FutureCare Charles Village in three Medicare categories. An otherwise shining star, Transitional Care managed to get a bleak 2-star rating for quality measures, even though it is located with a hospital. For quality measures, FutureCare Charles Village got four stars.
  • Transitional Care at Good Samaritan: This facility had the same main Medicare scores as Transitional Care Services at Mercy Medical Center: a great overall rating (5 stars) and very good ratings for its staffing and health inspection, and then that odd drop-off to a 2-star rating for quality measures. Here again, FutureCare Village scored better on this key metric than its cross-town rival. As you would expect from a hospital facility, this nursing home has only 30 beds. (Arguably, we should not be including these types of hospital facilities on the list.)
  • ManorCare Health Services - Roland Park: Here is yet another nearby Baltimore facility with scores comparable with FutureCare Charles Village in the most recent Medicare ratings; but in this case, Manorcare was the venue with the better quality-measure rating (5 stars to FutureCare's four stars).
  • The Green House at Stadium Place: The main Medicare ratings for this small, 49-bed Baltimore nonprofit nursing home are very comparable to those of FutureCare Charles Village, which holds a slight edge on quality measures (4 stars to 3 stars). It sits close to the Memorial Stadium property, the former home of the Baltimore Orioles on 33rd Street.
  • GSNH Operator, LLC: Perhaps better known as Good Samaritan, this Baltimore facility also received Medicare ratings very closely comparable to those of FutureCare Charles Village; and here, again, the FutureCare facility was one star better on quality measures.
  • Roland Park Place and Greater Baltimore Medical Center Sub Acute Unit: We are grouping these together. These two Baltimore facilities received identical scores in the four main Medicare categories, and they just missed matching the stellar scores of Maria Health Care Center (they got four stars, instead of 5 stars, for their health inspections). Very few facilities anywhere can compete with scores like these.
  • Autumn Lake Healthcare at Alice Manor: FutureCare Charles Village beat this Baltimore facility in three out of Medicare's four main rating categories. The FutureCare facility got only a modest 3-star (average rating) overall, but Autumn Lake's overall score was lower, with two stars (below average).
  • Keswick Multi-Care Center: Located half a mile from FutureCare Charles Village, this Baltimore facility got a bottom Medicare 1-star rating for its health inspection, and two stars overall; FutureCare got an average 3-star rating for these categories. But Keswick was as good as, or better than, the FutureCare facility on staffing and quality measures.
  • Homewood Center: With an overall Medicare rating of 1 star (and 1 star for its health inspection), Homewood Center appears to pose little competition to solidly average FutureCare Charles Village, which also outscored this other Baltimore facility, four stars to 2 stars, on quality measures.
  • Long Green Center: With dismal 1-star Medicare ratings for three of four main categories, this Baltimore facility offers serious competition to almost nobody. The closest it came to FutureCare Charles Village was its average 3-star rating for quality measures, still 1 star below the rating at the FutureCare facility.
Baltimore Nursing Home Lawyer

Has a nursing home made a mistake that cost someone you love dearly? We can help navigate Baltimore's legal system and fight for justice and compensation. Our legal system and a Baltimore jury will hold a responsible nursing home accountable if the nursing home does not make the settlement offer that it should. But before you get that far, you need to fight. Call our nursing home attorneys at Miller & Zois today at 800-553-8082 or get a FREE no obligation case review.

1 Vital Statistics
Number of Beds: 109 certified bedsrating information

Beds in the nursing home that have been approved by the federal government to participate in Medicare or Medicaid.

Accepts: Medicare and Medicaidrating information

Shows if the nursing home participates in the Medicare, Medicaid, or both.

2 Key Ratings
Star Rating Summary
Overall Rating rating information

A rating of 1 to 5 stars based on the health inspection, staffing, and quality measures ratings combined into one. More stars are better.

3 StarsAverage
Health Inspection rating information

A rating of 1 to 5 stars based on the nursing home’s health inspection results. More stars are better.

3 StarsAverage
Staffing rating information

A rating of 1 to 5 stars based on the nursing home’s staffing hours for Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs), and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). More stars are better.

3 StarsAverage
RN Staffing rating information

A rating of 1 to 5 stars based on the amount of time Registered Nurses (RNs) spend with residents as reported by the nursing home. More stars are better.

4 StarsAbove Average
Quality Measures rating information

A rating of 1 to 5 stars based on resident assessment data that show how well the nursing home cares for residents’ needs. More stars are better.

3 StarsAverage
3 Key Short Stay Statistics
DescriptionFuture Care Charles Village, LLCMD
Average
Percent of short-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain.
Lower percentages are better.
24.5%14.2%
Percent of short-stay residents with pressure ulcers that are new or worsened.
Lower percentages are better.
0.7%1.3%
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and given, appropriately, the seasonal influenza vaccine.
Higher percentages are better.
86.8%82.5%
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and given, appropriately, the pneumococcal vaccine.
Higher percentages are better.
93.4%81.2%
Percent of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication.
Lower percentages are better.
1.6%2.2%
4 Key Long Stay Statistics
DescriptionFuture Care Charles Village, LLCMD
Average
Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury.
Lower percentages are better.
1.7%2.9%
Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection.
Lower percentages are better.
2.6%4.5%
Percentage of long-stay residents who self-report moderate to severe pain.
Lower percentages are better.
5.8%6.4%
Percentage of long-stay high-risk residents with pressure ulcers.
Lower percentages are better.
8.9%6.8%
Percentage of long-stay low-risk residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder.
Lower percentages are better.
72.5%58.0%
Percentage of long-stay residents who have/had a catheter inserted and left in their bladder.
Lower percentages are better.
1.2%2.5%
Percentage of long-stay residents who were physically restrained.
Lower percentages are better.
0.0%0.6%
Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to move independently worsened.
Lower percentages are better.
22.7%22.3%
Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased.
Lower percentages are better.
21.3%18.7%
Percentage of long-stay residents who lose too much weight.
Lower percentages are better.
8.5%6.3%
Percentage of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms.
Lower percentages are better.
9.6%4.8%
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antianxiety or hypnotic medication.
Lower percentages are better.
16.4%18.3%
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and given, appropriately, the seasonal influenza vaccine.
Higher percentages are better.
96.9%95.0%
Percentage of long-stay residents assessed and given, appropriately, the pneumococcal vaccine.
Higher percentages are better.
98.7%92.2%
Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication.
Lower percentages are better.
12.5%14.1%
5 Inspection Summary

Date of standard health inspection: 07/30/2015
Total number of health deficiencies: 15
Average number of health deficiencies in MD: 10.6

Contact Us For a Free Consultation

If you are hurt in a serious accident or are the victim of medical malpractice, contact our team of lawyers to discuss your case.
Call us now for help at (800) 553-8082

You can also get a FREE no obligation on-line consultation.

Client Reviews

  • They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives.
    ★★★★★
  • Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for.
    ★★★★★
  • Hopefully I won't need it again but if I do, I have definitely found my lawyer for life and I would definitely recommend this office to anyone!
    ★★★★★
  • The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million.
    ★★★★★
  • I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois.
    ★★★★★
  • The entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable.
    ★★★★★
  • The case settled and I got a lot more money than I expected. Ron even fought to reduce how much I owed in medical bills so I could get an even larger settlement.
    ★★★★★
  • Miller and Zois is the best firm in the state of Maryland, and without their support, understanding, and just being there when I needed encouragement, I truly do not know how I would have succeeded without them.
    ★★★★★