No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Calhoun County Medical Care Facility

1150 E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, MI 49014 · Government - City/county · 120 certified beds · (269) 962-5458 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Flagged for abuse1 actual-harm citation
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • CMS has flagged it for abuse
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2025
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)

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.

1/5
CMS overall
1 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1125 Michigan Ave E · (269) 969-6014 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Rite Aid1.0 mi
890 E Michigan Ave · (269) 660-9509 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
883 E Michigan Ave · (269) 965-5262 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1150 E Michigan Ave · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 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 fell from 5 to 3 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased19.9%10.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.5%5.4%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%0.8%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%1.5%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.4%4.3%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.8%3.0%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened31.9%12.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication37.7%19.4%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.0%5.1%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control31.7%20.0%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table27.0%14.8%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.9%1.1%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine94.1%79.5%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission21.9%24.0%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.1%11.7%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.901.841.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.361.641.80better

§ 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.

44.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 68 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

44.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
60.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.30U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.11hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.15hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 60.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 81 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF44.5%CMS range 36.8–54.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.2%CMS range 7.1–15.610.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge60.5%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge44.4%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge50.6%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 dischargenot 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 stay1.1%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization8.1%CMS range 5.1–12.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.831.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this 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

0.73
RN hours/ resident / day
0.64
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.89
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.26
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.33
RN hoursweekends
41.8%
Total nursing turnover
20.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 107.3 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.26 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.89 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 3.81 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.44 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-24)
7
at the previous standard inspection (2025-02-21)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2025-11-24 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's (R1) right to be free from mental and physical abuse by facility staff. This citation pertains to intake number 2672519.Findings Included:Per the facility face sheet Resident #1 (R1) was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses of cognitive communication deficit, dementia, muscle weakness, and need for assistance with personal care.Review of R1 Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed R1 had a Brief Assessment of Mental Status or BIMS score of nine out of 15 which indicated R1 had a moderate impairment with her cognition. The MDS also revealed R1 was on a scheduled pain medication but did not routinely have pain.Review of an incident report dated 11/7/2025, revealed R1 was noted to have, New areas of dark discoloration measuring 6.0 X 4.5cm (centimeters) was observed on Right wrist/thumb area and 7.0cm X 5.0cm to dorsum (back of hand) of her left hand, There is also a bleeding skin tear measuring 0.5cm X 0.5cm within…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-04-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 maintain best practices in the food service area resulting in the potential to spread food borne illness to all residents that consume food from the kitchen. Findings Include:On 4/22/26 at 9:42 AM, observation of the main ice scoop holder found the bottom with white and brown crusted debris. An interview with Dietary Manager (DM) J found that it should get cleaned weekly. When asked why the inside bottom was roughed up, DM J stated they replaced the scoop and the old one had some rough edges, we will replace it. On 4/22/26 at 9:43 AM, observation of the underside of the tabletop mixer found some white accumulation of debris in the crevices of the under arm of the unit. On 4/22/26 at starting at 10:20 AM, observation of the [NAME] Court kitchen found the air gap for the ice machine had fallen below the overflow rim of the drain and was no longer creating a physical gap between the plumbing. An interview with DM J found that maintenance…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have an active and ongoing plan for reducing the risk of legionella and other opportunistic pathogens of premise plumbing (OPPP), resulting in the potential for increased risk of respiratory infection among all residents in the facility.Findings include: On 4/22/26 at 1:24 PM, an interview with Facilities Operations Manager (FOM) K, regarding the facilities Water Management Plan, found that housekeeping staff flush the domestic water lines in the soiled utility rooms that are not used regularly. When asked if there were other rooms, or fixtures, that needed to be regularly flushed, FOM K stated that they typically don't have empty resident rooms for long and there were no other fixtures that would need flushing. When asked if the facility was performing any testing for disinfection or legionella, FOM K stated that they were not performing any sampling of the water. On 4/22/26 at 1:24 PM, observation of the [NAME] Ridge spa room found 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-02-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 During a tour of the kitchen, at 10:35 AM on 2/18/25, an interview with CDM K found that the facility does not regularly test their sanitizer buckets. When asked about the availability of test strips, it was found that the only test strips available had manufacture expiration date of [DATE]. Further review found that the test strips were for bleach based sanitizer and the facility uses quaternary ammonium. According to the 2022 FDA Food Code section 4-302.14 Sanitizing Solutions, Testing Devices. A test kit or other device that accurately measures the concentration in MG/L of SANITIZING solutions shall be provided. During an evaluation of the kitchen, at 11:00 AM on 2/18/25, an interview with CDM K found that the large floor mixer is used approximately five times per week. At this time, the mixer was observed to have dried, white, food debris on the grated splash guard and the mixer was not in use. During an evaluation of the kitchen, at 11:10 AM on 2/18/25, the meat slicer was observed to have an accumulation…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-02-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
    Provide 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have an active and ongoing plan for reducing the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens of premise plumbing (OPPP). This deficient practice has the increased potential to result in water borne pathogens to exist and spread in the facility's plumbing system and an increased risk of respiratory infection among any or all the residents in the facility. Findings include: During an interview with Facilities Operations Manager (FOM) M, starting at 10:23 AM on 2/20/25, it was found that the facility does not currently have any routine testing on the facilities water supply. When asked if there was a team that oversaw the Water Management Program (WMP), FOM M stated she was unsure of a team. When asked what facility established control limits were in place in order to decrease the risk of Legionella and OPPP from growing a spreading in the facility, FOM M was unsure and stated she was slightly newer to the position and had not had…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-02-21 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure proper storage of medication in three of three medication carts and one medication room of three reviewed for medication storage. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 2/20/25 at 7:57 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) T opened the Maple Grove Medication cart. RN T verified three opened undated eye drops including xalatin, cosopt, and alphagan. RN T reported should be dated when opened and reported some staff document items open date in binder on medication cart and verified was not documented. During an observation on 2/20/25 at 8:51 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) U opened the [NAME] Court Medication cart. LPN U verified open undated eye drop prednisolone Acetate Ophthalmic Suspension 1 % and was unsure when it had been opened. During an interview on 2/21/25 at about 3:30 PM, Director of Nursing(DON) B reported would expect multidose medications including eye drops to be dated when opened and staff to follow, Medication with Shortened Expiration dates, guide placed in medication cart…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-21 · tag F0637 — isolated
    Assess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
    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 perform a Minimum Data Set (MDS) significant change in condition assessment for one of 19 residents (Resident #87) resulting in the potential for care needs to be unmet. Findings Included: Per the facility census R87 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a, Supportive Care Goals Worksheet document dated 1/21/2025, revealed 87's family consented for R87 to have no measures to sustain life, a do not resuscitate (DNR) order, no hospitalization, no routine testing, no routine weights, only essential medication and vital signs were to be given. At the bottom of the form under Supportive Care it was revealed that 87's authorized decision maker signed the form on 1/21/2025 stating that consent was given for Supportive Care, and to provide treatments to promote quality of life and comfort, rather that achieve improvement in health for R87. The Nurse Practitioner signed the form on 1/21/2025, and the Physician signed the form on 1/24/2025. Review of…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    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 ensure three out of 19 residents (Resident 26, 57, and 87) received care and services that met their care needs resulting in the potential for unmet care needs. Findings Included: Resident #87 (R87): Per the facility census R87 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. During the entrance conference on 2/18/2025 at 10:04 AM Administrator A stated that the facility did not offer outside contracted Hospice services, but did offer services provided by the facility to residents. Review of the facility, Supportive Care Protocol policy dated 12/20/2022 and revised on 5/10/2023, revealed that the facility provided, .comfort, dignity, and support, as residents enter the last stages of their life. The policy revealed, This will allow the resident to focus their goals of care to support how they (the resident) choose to live rather than try to cure or aggressively treat their chronic health conditions. Further review of the policy revealed under…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    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 ensure proper storage, cleaning and labeling of oxygen/respiratory equipment for two Resident (R57 and R61), of four residents reviewed for oxygen and respiratory care, resulting in the likelihood for cross contamination, respiratory illnesses/disease. Findings include: Resident #57(R57) Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R57 was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure, congestive heart failure(CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of lung cancer with lung removal, diabetes mellitus, history pneumonia, anxiety and depression. The MDS reflected R57 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 15 which indicated her ability to make daily decisions was cognitively intact, and she required set up dressing, hygiene; supervision with bathing and toileting; and partial/moderate assist with transfers. During an…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolated
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    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 insure that one resident (R57) was free from significant medications errors out of one resident reviewed for significant medication errors resulting in the potential for adverse physical reactions/outcomes to residents. Findings Included: Resident #57 (R57) Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R57 was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure, congestive heart failure(CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of lung cancer with lung removal, diabetes mellitus, history pneumonia, anxiety and depression. The MDS reflected R57 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 15 which indicated her ability to make daily decisions was cognitively intact, and she required set up dressing, hygiene; supervision with bathing and toileting; and partial/moderate assist with transfers. During an observation and interview on…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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/or implement a comprehensive care plan for 1 (Resident #25) of 19 residents reviewed, resulting in the potential for unmet care needs. Findings include: Review of the medical record revealed that Resident #25 (R25) was admitted to facility 11/1/2018 with diagnoses including hypertensive heart disease with heart failure and personal history of other venous thrombosis and embolism. Review of the Minimum Date Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/4/23 revealed that R25 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool) score of 15 (cognitively intact). Review of an active Activities of Daily Living Care Plan reflected that R25 required extensive assist of 1 with upper and lower body dressing and was dependent for footwear placement. In an observation and interview on 2/25/24 at 1:44 PM, R25 was observed sitting in room, in high back wheelchair, with back of chair reclined slightly 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-27 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    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 provide restorative services for two of two residents reviewed for limited mobility (Resident #17 & #40), resulting in unmet needs and goals. Findings include: Resident #40 (R40) On 2/25/24 at approximately 12:50 PM R40 was observed seated in a wheelchair at a table eating lunch. R40 held a fork in her right hand that was arthritic and appeared to be struggling with picking up food with her fork. On 2/26/24 at 12:44 PM R40 was observed eating lunch using a spoon; she was able to grip and control the spoon more easily when compared to a fork. R40's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with assessment reference date of 12/06/23 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]; had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), a short performance-based cognitive screener, score of 10 (08-12 Moderate Cognitive Impairment). The same MDS assessment indicated R40 did not have deficits in functional range of motion (ROM), in her upper and lower…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
CALHOUN COUNTY MEDICAL CARE FACILITYOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 04/14/2011
COUNTY OF CALHOUNOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 11/14/1977
CAMPBELL, BYRONIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 11/05/2018
SHERBAN, SHERIIIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 11/28/2022
SMITH, TINOIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 11/01/2023
CHUNG, YOUNHOIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/1998
CORNISH, STEPHANIEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/10/2022
SEDORE, MISTYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/31/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 organizational owners 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.

$13.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-24.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$95K
Related-party expense1% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 81%Medicare 4%Other / private 15%

About 81% 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 $95K 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

$513per resident / day
operating cost
$15,591per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$412per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Michigan
$11,254/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$11,969/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,818/mo
Assisted living

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 235237. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-24, 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.

What to do next