Wexford Senior Care Center

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

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.

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.

53.9% 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 122 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 63.4% 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 93 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.

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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 131 beds and averages 77.1 residents a day — about 59% occupied, or roughly 54 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 4.13 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.03 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.68 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 3.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.26 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.16 to 0.71 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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.

17 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2026-06-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  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 adequate supervision by failing to effectively identify and assess elopement risk to assure resident safety needs for one resident (Resident #4) of three residents reviewed for supervision.Findings Include:Resident #4 (R4) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included alcohol dependence with alcohol-induced persisting dementia, Wernicke's Encephalopathy (a potentially life-threatening neurological disorder caused by a severe deficiency of thiamine [vitamin B1]), and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition.On 6/8/26 at approximately 6:55 AM, R4 exited the facility unsupervised and without staff knowledge following activation of a fire alarm on the 100 North Hall. Facility investigation revealed R4 exited through the 100 North Hall exit door 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has plan of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor the advanced directive for code status for one Resident (#71) of one resident reviewed for advanced directives (a legal document that allows a person to identify decisions about end-of-life care ahead of time). This deficient practice resulted in the potential for decisions regarding end-of-life care to not be honored by the facility. Findings include:Resident #71 (R71)The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) of R71 included an active physician's order dated 7/18/25 that read DNR [do not resuscitate].A Power of Attorney (POA) document in the EMR was signed by R71 on 1/5/24. The document indicated R71 designated her daughter to make health care decisions if R71 became incapable of making independent healthcare decisions.The POA document read, in part: 4. Specific instructions for life-support treatment. 'Life-support treatment' includes, for example, a breathing machine, getting food or water through tubes, and CPR. The document directed R71 to select and initial a Choice for end-of-life care. R71 initialed Choice 3, which…

  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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-08-07 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  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 monitor and assess nutritional interventions and modify or implement revised interventions for one resident (#6) of two residents reviewed for nutrition with significant weight loss. Findings include:Resident #6 (R6)R6 was admitted to the facility 2/21/24 with primary diagnoses of psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. On 8/6/25 at 1:08 PM, R6 was observed at a table in the dining room during the lunch meal. R6 had a plate of Salisbury steak, mashed potatoes, and peas in front of her. R6 was not eating and did not appear interested in the meal. R6 was not encouraged to eat or assisted by staff. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) J offered R6 an alternate meal but R6 declined. LPN J provided R6 a MightyShakes(R) (a liquid nutritional supplement) but R6 refused to drink any of the supplement. LPN J said, Sometimes [R6] doesn't drink her shake.A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for R6 dated 7/1/25 documented a weight loss of 5% or more in the past month or loss of 10% or more in the past six months…

  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 · F2024-08-14 · 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

  Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among any and all 62 residents. Findings include: On 8/13/24 at approximately 11:45 AM, the steam table located in the kitchen was observed to have food ready for the noon meal. [NAME] B was asked if the food in the steam table was at proper temperature and ready to be served. [NAME] B stated it was. A stainless steel hotel pan containing what was identified by [NAME] B to be ground meat for the noon meal and was prepared for the specified ground texture diet. The temperature of the ground meat was measured with a Super Fast metal stem digital thermometer. Multiple locations within the ground meat product were measured to have temperatures of 112°F, 114°F, and 116°F. No internal areas of the food product were measured to be above 135°F. At approximately 11:55 AM [NAME] B was observed measuring the temperatures of the hot food…

  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 · Ecited before2024-08-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  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, record review, and interview the facility failed to implement enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for six residents (Resident #4, #20, #27, #39, #63, #64) of 24 sampled residents reviewed for EBP. This deficient practice has the potential for development and transmission of multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO) infections. Findings include: On 8/13/24 at 7:47 AM, during observations on the 200 and 400 unit, it was noted that no EBP signs were on resident doors for sampled residents who were identified as meeting criteria for EBP. These signs are used to alert staff to utilize personal protective equipment (PPE). There were also no carts located in these areas for the availability to store gloves, gown, and shields. (Staff are required to wear a gown and gloves during direct high-contact resident care activities for residents known to be colonized or infected with a MDRO as well as those at increased risk of MDRO acquisition such as residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices). High…

  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 · Dcited before2024-08-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
  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 catheter securement devices were in place to prevent indwelling urinary catheter dislodgement for two residents (Resident #20 and Resident #64) of three residents reviewed for catheter care. Findings include: Resident #20 (R20) According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], R20 scored 8/15 (moderately impaired cognition) on her BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) assessment, and required extensive assistance with two person transfers. R20 was incontinent of bowel and had an indwelling catheter. Diagnoses for R20 included diabetes mellitus, anxiety, muscle weakness, and need for assistance with personal care. During an observation and interview on 8/13/24 at 12:10 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) C was performing a sacral wound dressing change for R20, who had a urinary catheter. R20 was observed with no indwelling catheter securement device in place. RN C stated, (R20) is dependent on staff for her cares. RN C…

  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 · D2024-08-14 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
  Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
  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 tube feeding was administered and dated per standards of practice to meet the nutritional needs of one Resident (R27) of one resident reviewed for tube feeding. Findings include: Review of R27's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed admission to the facility on 2/5/24 with diagnoses including dysphagia, perforation of esophagus, and moderate protein-calorie malnutrition. On 8/12/24 at 11:15 a.m., R27 was observed in bed watching television with Jevity 1.5 [tube feeding formula supplying 1.5 calories per milliliter (mL)] infusing at 55 ml per hour (ml/hr). The Jevity 1.5 tube feeding formula bottle and the flush bag hanging above the tube feeding pump was undated and did not have nursing initials. On 8/13/24 at 8:47 a.m., R27 was observed in his bed sleeping with his tube feeding bottle dated 8/12/24 and his flush bag undated with no nursing initials. On 8/14/24 at 11:22 a.m., R27 was observed in his bed with his tube feeding…

  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 · E2023-08-30 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — pattern
  Honor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
  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 ensure grievances were documented, investigated, tracked and resolved for the members of the Resident Council, resulting in feeling of anger, frustration and unresolved grievances. Findings include. During a Resident Council meeting on 08/29/23 at 02:32 PM, 20 residents attended this meeting and shared frustration of unresolved grievance matters. Ten of 20 residents complained they were still getting cold food served to them. Four of 20 residents complained of small portions and when asked for more, the kitchen staff had left for the day. Six of 20 residents stated they do not have a choice on what they eat, they were served what was made. Adding the menu is hard to see where it is posted for those in a wheelchair. Eight of 20 residents stated the facility does not honor dislikes from meal ticket. Ten of 20 residents stated they were served meat, mainly fish that was not fully cooked, still cold from being froze in the middle. Twelve of 20 residents stated carrots are under cooked and cannot chew them. They…

  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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2023-08-30 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — pattern
  Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment was safe, sanitary and functional as evidenced by carpeting on the 200 and 400 halls being stained, torn, emanating foul odors, rippled and uncleanable. This deficient practice has the potential to contribute to falls, and a general feeling of discomfort to 64 residents living on the halls, of a total 75 residents in the facility, staff and visitors. Findings include: On 8/28/23 between 10:30 and 11:15 AM, observations were made in the 200 and 400 hall corridors. These observations revealed urine-like odors emanating from the carpeting in the 200 halls, along with observations of torn and stained areas, and lumps and ripples throughout the 200 and 400 corridors. On 8/28/23 at 11:15 AM an interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) A regarding the carpeting. CNA A stated she could smell the urine/mildew odors and attributed it to the carpeting and the inability to maintain it in a clean condition. On 8/29/23 at 9:50 AM, an interview was conducted with maintenance staff C who stated that…

  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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-08-30 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  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 accurately complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for one resident (#426) of 18 residents reviewed for accurate assessments resulting in the potential for inaccurate plans of care and unmet resident care needs. Findings Included: Resident #426 (R426) Review of the medical record revealed R426 was admitted to the facility 08/18/2023 with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis (inflammation of bone caused by infection) of vertebra, congestive heart failure (CHF), urinary tract infection, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), hydronephrosis (excessive back of urine in the kidney) , bacteremia (viable bacteria in the blood), Legionnaire's disease (type of pneumonia caused by legionella bacteria), hypertension, anxiety, fibromyalgia (wide spread muscle pain or tenderness), hyperlipidemia (high fat content in blood), morbid obesity, atrial fibrillation, chronic respiratory failure, and intervertebral disc degeneration. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/24/2023,…

  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

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to NEXCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS — 20 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

3 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.

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