Chapel Hill Nursing Center: Resident Rights Failures - MD

The family called the police.

That incident, along with a separate finding about an uncovered catheter bag left visible to anyone who walked past a resident's bed, formed the basis of a complaint inspection completed March 30, 2026, at Chapel Hill Nursing Center, a facility at 4511 Robosson Road in Randallstown. Federal inspectors cited the facility for failing to uphold the dignity and rights of residents, a deficiency they documented for two of the four residents reviewed during the survey.

The feeding incident involved a resident identified in inspection records only as Resident #61. At some point before the March 26 review, a staff member had come to the resident's room to assist with lunch. The resident was on a phone call with two family members: their sister, who served as the resident's legal representative, and their mother. The staff member told the resident she would feed them after the call ended and left the room.

The resident's sister, on the line and listening to the exchange, told the staff member directly that it was fine to go ahead, that the resident wasn't actively talking. The staff member declined again and repeated that she would return once the resident was off the phone.

What followed moved fast. The family, believing the resident was being denied food, called the police to report neglect. Officers responded. The resident told police they had not been abused or neglected and had in fact received their lunch. The police left.

But the inspection report makes clear that what happened before the resident eventually ate was the issue. The surveyor's concern was not whether the resident ultimately received a meal. It was that a staff member had conditioned feeding assistance on the resident ending a personal phone call, over the explicit objection of both the resident's representative and, implicitly, the resident themselves.

On March 26, at 2 in the afternoon, inspectors sat down with the Nursing Home Administrator and the Director of Nursing to discuss the complaint. The Director of Nursing walked through the sequence of events: the call, the staff member's refusal, the family's reaction, the police. Then the surveyor asked a direct question: did the resident have the right to be fed while on the phone?

The Director of Nursing said yes.

The surveyor asked whether the resident's rights had been denied.

The Director of Nursing said no.

Then came the explanation. "We can't make staff do something that they do not feel comfortable doing," the Director of Nursing told the surveyor. "The nurse at that time did not feel comfortable about feeding the resident while the family was on the phone."

The surveyor rejected that framing. The inspection report states that the surveyor explained directly to the Director of Nursing that the resident's rights had been denied, and that requiring the resident to end a phone call in order to receive feeding assistance was a violation of those rights, taken against the resident's wishes.

The Director of Nursing's position, as recorded, was that staff discomfort could override a resident's right to communicate with family. The inspection report does not indicate that position changed during the interview.

That exchange is worth sitting with. The Director of Nursing acknowledged, when pressed, that the resident had a right to be fed while on the phone. Then declined to characterize the incident as a denial of that right. The internal logic only holds if staff comfort is treated as a competing right that can cancel out the resident's. The surveyor did not accept that.

The second finding involved a resident identified as Resident #14, who uses a urinary catheter. On the morning of March 23, during the surveyor's initial observation, the catheter drainage bag was hanging from the bed without a cover. A bag cover is a basic piece of equipment used to keep the catheter bag from being visible to others, a standard accommodation for dignity.

By the following afternoon, March 24 at 12:35 PM, the cover was in place.

Two days later, on March 26 at 2:43 in the afternoon, the surveyor returned to the room and found the bag uncovered again. This time the cover was not missing. It was lying on the floor next to the bag, within arm's reach of where it should have been. The resident was in the bed.

Three observations across four days. Two of them showed the bag uncovered. Once, the cover was on the floor beside it. The inspection report does not describe any staff in the room during the latter observation, nor any explanation for how the cover came to be on the floor.

The pattern matters more than any single instance. The cover had been put in place after the first observation, which is consistent with staff responding to a surveyor's presence. The fact that it was off again two days later, with the cover lying unused on the floor, suggests the correction did not hold.

Inspectors rated both deficiencies at the lowest level of harm: minimal harm or potential for actual harm. Neither finding triggered what CMS classifies as immediate jeopardy. The inspection was conducted as a complaint survey, not a routine annual recertification, though the report notes it occurred during an annual recertification survey period.

The facility's plan of correction was not included in the inspection records reviewed for this article. The report directs anyone seeking that plan to contact the facility or the state survey agency.

What the inspection records do contain is the Director of Nursing's statement, given under direct questioning, that the facility could not compel a staff member to feed a resident because the staff member was uncomfortable doing so while the resident was on a family call. That statement was made after the Director of Nursing confirmed the resident had the right to be fed during that call. The surveyor had to explain, in the room, during the interview, that what had happened was a violation.

Resident #61's family called the police. The police came, spoke to the resident, and left. The resident said they had been fed and were not being neglected. The family's fear had been wrong about the outcome, but the inspection record suggests it was not wrong about the principle. A staff member had told a resident to get off the phone with their mother before she would bring them lunch. The resident's representative said it was fine to proceed. The staff member left anyway.

The cover for Resident #14's catheter bag was on the floor.

Full Inspection Report

The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Chapel Hill Nursing Center from 2026-03-30 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.

Additional Resources

• View all inspection reports for Chapel Hill Nursing Center
• Browse all MD nursing home inspections