Allegan County Medical Care Facility
3265 122nd Ave R2, Allegan, MI 49010 · Government - County · 39 certified beds · (269) 673-2102 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 25.0% | 10.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.1% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.5% | 4.3% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.6% | 3.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.0% | 12.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.7% | 19.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.3% | 5.1% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.7% | 20.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.9% | 14.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 39 beds and averages 31.2 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.35 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.47 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.01 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.49 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.84 to 1.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was transmitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) timely for 1 (Resident #21) of 1 resident reviewed for resident assessments, resulting in the potential for an inaccurate reflection of the resident's status.Findings include:Resident #21Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #21 was a female, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE].A review of Resident #21's electronic medical record (EMR) MDS screen revealed that Resident #21's 12/9/25 Quarterly MDS was completed. It was not marked as accepted to indicate that it had been transmitted to CMS.In an interview on 2/19/26 at 12:47 PM, MDS Coordinator (MDSC) Y reported that Director of Nursing (DON) B had previously been the MDS Coordinator and was still the one who exported (referring to transmitting) the completed MDS assessments to CMS.In an interview on 2/19/26 at 12:51 PM, DON B reviewed Resident #21's 12/9/25 Quarterly MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide activities of daily living (ADL) care (to include nail care) to a dependent resident for 1 (Resident #3) of 1 resident reviewed for ADL care resulting in dirty nails and the potential for feelings of embarrassment.Findings include:Resident #3Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #3 was a female, with pertinent diagnoses which included: hemiplegia and hemiparesis (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominant side; vascular dementia, moderate with psychotic disturbance (abnormal thinking and loss of contact with reality); and major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #3, with a reference date of 2/3/26 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11, out of a total possible score of 15, which indicated Resident #3 was moderately cognitively impaired. Further review of said MDS revealed Resident #3 had a functional limitation in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 1.) a complete physician order was in place for BiPAP (bilevel positive airway pressure - a noninvasive breathing device that helps people with breathing difficulties breathe more easily) therapy and 2.) BiPAP therapy administration was documented for 1 (Resident #18) of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care, resulting in an incomplete reflection of the resident's care.Findings include:Resident #18Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #18 was a female, with pertinent diagnoses which included: obstructive sleep apnea (breathing repeatedly stops and starts during sleep due to the muscles in the back of the throat relaxing and causing airway blockage).Review of a current Care Plan for Resident #18 revealed, (Resident #18) has obstructive sleep apnea and uses a BiPap with oxygen while asleep with a date initiated of 7/24/23.Review of a current Physician's Order revealed, BiPap setting: Min (minimum) 4.0 (cmH2O - centimeters water)-Max (maximum) 8.0 (cmH2O), Auto 5 (cmH2O), pressure 13.3 (cmH2O), min…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-02-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among all residents that consume food in the kitchen. Findings include: During a tour of the kitchen, at 11:00 AM on 2/10/25, an interview with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) K, found that the stand up mixer does not get used very often. Upon taking the plastic cover off the mixer, it was observed to have white and yellow dried crusted debris on the inside of the shield / grate of the unit. When asked if she could see the accumulation, CDM K nodded. According to the 2022 FDA Food Code section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood-Contact Surfaces, and Utensils. (A) EQUIPMENT FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES and UTENSILS shall be clean to sight and touch . During an interview with CDM K, at 11:18 AM on 2/10/25, it was found that staff cool food and keep a log of their process. A review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan, to include anticoagulant (blood thinner) use, for 1 (Resident #3) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, resulting in an incomplete reflection of the resident's medication status and the potential for unmet care needs. Findings include: Resident #3 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #3 was a female, with pertinent diagnoses which included: unspecified atrial fibrillation (an irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow). Review of a physician's order for Resident #3 revealed, Eliquis Tablet 5 MG (milligrams) (Apixaban) Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to UNSPECIFIED ATRIAL FIBRILLATION (I48.91) Pharmacy Active 12/7/2022 A review of Resident #3's current Care Plan on 2/11/25 at 10:49 AM, revealed no care planned focus, goals, or interventions related to her Eliquis (an anticoagulant) use. In an interview on 2/11/25 at 2:09 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported she had just recently taken…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1.) maintain safe infection control practices in regards to hand hygiene (glove use) during direct care for 1 resident (Resident #4) and 2.) ensure that all staff consistently don proper PPE (personal protective equipment) prior to conducting high contact activities with a resident where Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were in place for 1 resident (Resident #12) of 11 residents reviewed for infection control, resulting in the potential for cross-contamination and the development and spread of bacteria. Findings include: Resident #4 Review of Resident #4's Care Plan revealed, .(Resident #4) is on Enhanced Barrier Precautions r/t (related to) history of extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase (this is a type of enzyme or chemical produced by some bacteria, that can make some antibiotics ineffective in treating bacterial infections) in urine, J-tube (indwelling medical device used to deliver nutrition directly into the small intestine), and foley catheter (indwelling medical device used to drain urine from the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview the facility failed to properly store clean and sanitary items, maintain laundry equipment, and clean resident shared equipment. These conditions resulted in the increased risk of clean and sanitary items and equipment to become contaminated before use, increasing the risk of negative outcomes for the resident population. Findings include: During a tour of the facility, with Maintenance Director FF, starting at 9:27 AM on 4/17/24, the following observations were made: The Hillcrest North linen closet found an accumulation of dust and debris located underneath the bottom open wire racks, leaving clean linens open and exposed to possible contamination from cleaning. The clean utility room in [NAME] was found with a cardboard covering on shelves containing clean and sanitary personal hygiene products. An observation of the private bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] found a cloth chair stored between the shower and the commode. The Hillcrest South spa was found with cleaning products…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #232) reviewed for baseline care plans, resulting in the potential for unmet care needs. Findings include: Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #232 had pertinent diagnoses which included: hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non-dominate side and weakness. During an observation on 4/16/24 at 12:29 PM., Resident #232 was seated in his wheelchair, leaning to his left side, at a table in the dining room with his food on the table in front of him and made no attempt to initiate eating. During an observation on 4/16/24 at 12:35 PM., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) EE was sitting at the table in the dining room with Resident #232. CNA EE was assisting Resident #232 to eat his lunch. In an interview on 4/16/24 at 12:45 PM., CNA EE reported that Resident #232 was new to the facility, and she was not sure what assistance he required. Review of Resident #232's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement person centered comprehensive care plans for 2 of 12 residents (R9 and R11) reviewed for care planning, resulting in the potential of a lack of service for residents to maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: R9 According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], R9 scored 14/15 (cognitively intact) on his BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status), had no impairments in his arms but did have impairment in his legs, and was independent in rolling left and right. Section M: Skin Conditions indicated R9 was at risk for pressure ulcers, had 1 or more unhealed pressure ulcers with 1 unstageable suspected deep tissue injury in evolution. During an observation and interview on 4/16/24 at 10:42 AM, R9 reported he was able to reposition the top portion of his body from his waist and hips side to side. Resident demonstrated moving side to side without lifting his bottom…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-02-12 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post the required daily nurse staffing information on 2/10, 2/11 and 2/12/2025, for all 33 residents in the facility, resulting in a lack of available staffing information for residents and visitors. Findings include: In an observation and review on 2/10/25 at 2:21pm, the Resident Care Labor Hours document, posted in the common area near the nurses station, was dated 2/7/25. The document identified the number of Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) and nurses working on each unit, during each shift, for 1 day. In an observation and review on 2/11/25 at 10:32am, the Resident Care Labor Hours document posted in the common area near the nurses station, was dated 2/7/25. In an observation and review on 2/12/25 at 11:05am, the Resident Care Labor Hours documented posted in the common area near the nurses station, was dated 2/7/25. In an interview on 2/11/25 at 2:18pm, Director of Nursing (DON) B reported the Staffing Scheduler was responsible for posting the required daily Resident Care Labor Hours document. DON B…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2025-02-12 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — widespreadDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop policies and procedures to include current standards of practice in regard to pneumococcal immunizations, resulting in the potential for eligible residents to not be offered either the PCV15 (15-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine), PCV20 (20-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine) or PCV21 (21-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine) therefore increasing the risk of acquiring, transmitting, or experiencing complications from pneumococcal pneumonia. Findings include: Review of the facility policy/procedure Pneumococcal Vaccination, last revised 6/2018 and last reviewed 9/2023 revealed, .5. The type of pneumococcal vaccine (PCV13 (13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine), PPSV23/PPSV (23-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine) offered will depend upon the recipient's age and susceptibility to pneumonia .7. A series of vaccinations will be offered to immunocompetent adults (greater than or equal to) 65, depending on current vaccination status and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COUNTY OF ALLEGAN | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/1970 |
| TURCOTT, KIMBERLY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 03/18/2002 |
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 70% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $385K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MI
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Michigan Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 235213. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-20, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.