Oakpointe Senior Care and Rehab Center
18901 Meyers Rd, Detroit, MI 48235 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 106 certified beds · (313) 864-8481 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% 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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 improved from 4 to 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 | 4.8% | 10.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.5% | 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 | 0.3% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.0% | 3.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.8% | 12.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.3% | 19.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 5.1% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.9% | 20.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.6% | 14.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 58.3% | 79.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.3% | 24.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.4% | 11.7% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
51.3% 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 73 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.0% 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 20 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 44% 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
| 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 | 51.3%CMS range 41.1–62.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 6.8–13.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | 55.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 50.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 45.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 82.1% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 3.6–10.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.67 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
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 3.00 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.39 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.78 is below 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 2.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.18 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY This citation contains two Deficienct Practice Statements Deficient Practice Statement #1. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that staff followed enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and donned appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for one resident (R1) out of two residents reviewed for EBP. This failure resulted in the potential for transmission of infectious organisms. Findings include: On 06/10/25 at 11:12 A.M., during an observation of resident care, licensed practical nurse (LPN) B was observed administering a 100 ml (milliliter) water flush through R1's percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. LPN B did not don a gown prior to providing the care. Signage on R1's door indicated Enhanced Barrier Precautions and PPE (including gowns) being available outside R1's room. An interview was conducted with LPN B immediately following the observation. LPN B acknowledged that they should have worn a gown and gloves while administering the PEG tube flush 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-13 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon Pharmacy Recommendations in a timelly manner regarding discontinuing blood sugar checks four times a day for one (R92) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medication regimen reviews, resulting in unnecesary monitoring and the potential for R92 to experience discomfort during multiple finger sticks. Findings include: According to R92's Electronic Health Record (EHR) the resident had multiple diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes (adult onset diabetes) without complications. On 4/11/24 the physician prescribed the following insulin orders: Novolog (fast acting insulin) injection per sliding scale (varies the dose of insulin injection based on the blood sugar level) before meals and at bedtime (4 times a day) as follows; for blood sugar reading; 0-200 = zero units of insulin, 201-250 = 1 unit of insulin, 251-300 = 2 units of insulin, 301-350 = 3 units of insulin, 351-400 = 5 units of insulin, and 401- 450 = 5 units of insulin, if over 450 call the physician. The Pharmacy Recommendation for R92 dated…
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 before2024-06-13 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 follow the Standards of Practice during medication administration for three of five residents (R18, R68, and R52) resulting in the potential for medication errors. Findings include: Resident 52 On 6/12/24 at 9:14 AM on the 1 North Hall, Registered Nurse (RN) H was observed standing at the medication cart looking at the computer screen. There was a medication cup with 6 white pills of various shapes sitting on top of the medication cart. There were 2 separate pills inside white plastic pharmacy packaging identified as 'Lasix 20 milligrams (mg)'. There was no resident's name on the packaging. During interview RN H said she was going to pass the 6 pills in the medication cup to R52 but the medications did not match up to what was on R52's Medications Administration Records (MAR). RN H said she had just taken the medication cart from Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) J and the pills were already in the cup. RN H confirmed she did not put the pills in the medication cup herself, did not know which resident'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 · D2024-06-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 clarify an order for compression stockings per physician orders for one (R27) of one resident reviewed for compression stockings resulting in edema and the potential for increased compromised of R27's cardiovascular system. Findings include: On 6/11/2024 at 12:56 P.M., R27 was observed seated in a wheelchair in her room with her feet on the floor. During the observation R27 complained her feet were swollen and nothing had been done even though the concern had been observed and reported to staff. R27's feet were observed during the interview and appeared very swollen. At 2:00 P.M. during an observation on the unit, R27 stated, her feet had gotten worse, and her friend had brought a pillow into the facility to elevate her legs but that was difficult to do since the right leg rest of the wheelchair was removed and left under the bed. R27 stated, her feet started swelling about two-three weeks ago and both were worse at night or evening once…
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 · D2024-06-13 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide 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 follow recommendations for restorative therapy for one resident (R89) out of three residents reviewed for positioning, resulting in the potential for contractures (shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, and tissues). Findings include: During an observation and interview on 6/11/24 at 11:45 AM, R89 was observed sitting in a geri chair unable to move left side of body. Family Member G reported that R89 needed continued therapy. Record review of R89's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed admission into the facility on 4/25/24 with a diagnosis of hemiplegia/hemiparesis (paralysis) related to cerebral infarction (stroke). According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], R89 had impaired cognition and required substantial/maximal assistance with most Activities of Daily Living (ADLS). Record review of Restorative Nursing Referral dated 6/6/24 documented the following: Frequency: 2 times daily per Resident's tolerance for 8 wks…
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 · D2024-06-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to secure smoking materials and complete a smoking assessment for one (R82) of one resident reviewed for smoking safety, accident, and hazards, resulting in the potential for injury to self and other residents. Findings include: In an observation on 6/11/24 at 11:27 a.m., a hand held cigarette lighter sat on top of a phone on R82's bedside table. R82 reported not having any cigarettes and is not currently smoking. R82 then reported getting the lighter from a family member and it usually is put in a purse. In an observation and interview on 6/11/24 at 11:38 a.m., Life Enrichment Director D reported cigarettes and lighters should be stored at the front desk. Life Enrichment Director D was asked should R82 have a lighter in the room. Review of an admission Record revealed, R82 originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with pertinent diagnosis which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis) of the right side.…
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 · D2024-06-13 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost 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 nurse staffing information for all 98 residents as well as visitors entering the facility, resulting in the necessary staffing information not being available. Findings include: On 6/11/24 at 9:30 A.M., behind the front receptionist desk in the lobby area a posted board was labeled with the facility's name and smudged out numbers and information related to nurse staffing. Observations on 2:30 P.M. and again at 4:30 P.M., revealed the nurse staffing board had the same smudged out information. The facility's nurse staffing numbers were not clearly visible. On 6/12/24 at 12:30 P.M. and 4:00 P.M., the nurse staffing board remained in the same condition as the previous day. On 6/13/24 at 10:00 A.M. the nurse staffing board had not been updated or changed. At 11:00 A.M., the Administrator was queried if the board in the front lobby was where the facility posted nurse staffing information. The Administrator identified the same board in the front lobby and stated Supervisor O was responsible for updating 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 · Dcited before2024-06-13 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 a medication error rate of less than five percent when two medication errors out of 26 opportunities for error were observed for two (R18 and R68) out of five residents reviewed during the medication administration observation, resulting in a 7.69% error rate. Findings include: Resident 18 On 6/12/24 at 9:38 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) H was observed to administer medications to R18 during the AM dose. RN H was observed to deliver two puffs of the following inhaler; Breo-Ellipta Aerosol Powder Breath Activated 200-25 micrograms (mcg) ACT. According to R18's physician's order dated 4/24/24 and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2024, R18 was prescribed Breo-Ellipta Inhalation Aerosol Powder Breath Activated 200-25 mcg ACT one puff inhale orally in the morning. Resident 68 On 6/12/24 at 10:15 AM Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) J along with LPN I was observed to administer medications to R68 during the AM dose. LPN J said she was in orientation and LPN I was training her. During medication…
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 · D2024-06-13 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure 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 ensure that one resident (R68) was free from significant medication errors out of five residents reviewed for medication errors resulting in R68 only receiving half the prescribed dose of anti-anxiety medications for 4 consecutive doses. Findings include: According to R68's Electronic Health Record the resident had multiple diagnoses that included malignant neoplasm of the brain, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. On 5/21/24 the resident was admitted to Hospice care. R68's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] indicated that R68 had intact cognition with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14/15. According to R68's physician's order dated 5/31/24 and Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June 2024, R68 was prescribed Ativan 1.0 milligram (mg) by mouth two times a day at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM. On 6/12/24 at 10:15 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) J along with LPN I was observed to administer…
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 before2024-06-13 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow the standards of infection control for proper glove use and hand hygiene, for two residents (R2 and R308) out of 20 sampled residents reviewed for infection control, resulting in the potential for increased cross-contamination of diseases which place a vulnerable population at high risk for infections. Findings include: R2 Review of an admission Record revealed, R2 originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with pertinent diagnosis which included Dementia and Type II Diabetes. Review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed R2 had no cognitive impairment with a Brief interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15. R308 Review of an admission Record revealed, R308 originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with pertinent diagnosis which included Type II Diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and Malignant Neoplasm (cancer) 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.
- Potential for harm · F2023-07-03 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — widespreadMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 utilize essential equipment to ensure a functional call light system resulting in call lights not answered in a timely manner, unmet care needs, and the potential delay in responding to emergency situations. This had the potential to affect all residents in the facility that utilize the call light. Findings include: On 6/28/23 at 10:26 a.m. during the initial pool process, R42 was observed resting in bed. The resident was alert, oriented x3, and able to make all needs known. During the interview, R42 voiced concerns with long call light response time, I have sat in bm (bowel movement) for three hours before. Sometimes I just want a cup of water and have to wait a long time. If I was having a heart attack, I could be dead before they would know. I have to flag someone down if they walk by the room to get their attention. They used to have pagers to let them know to come to the room. Now they have to look on the board at the nurse's station. R42 was asked did the facility give a hand-held bell to use. R42…
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 before2023-07-03 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
This citation pertains to intakes MI00130262 and MI00133274. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered properly and per physician's orders for one resident (R35) of six residents reviewed for medication administration, resulting in the potential for less than therapeutic effect of the prescribed medication when medications were not taken or administered properly. Findings include: In an observation on 6/28/23 at 11:52 a.m., R35 laid in bed. A medication cup with multiple pills sat on R35's bedside table. R35 stated, this is something new, the nurse usually stands here to make sure I take the medication. In an observation and interview on 6/28/23 at 11:54 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C reported medication should not be left at bedside. R35 reported she was sleeping and did not see the nurse bring in the medication. LPN C then stood by while R35 take the medication. LPN C acknowledged that she was not the assigned nurse for R35. Review of an admission record revealed, R35 admitted to the facility 10/25/21 with…
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 before2023-07-03 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 administer medications accurately for two residents (R8 and R96) out of five residents during medication pass, resulting in a medication error rate of 13.79 %. Findings include: Resident #38 (R38) In an observation on 6/29/23 at 8:01 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) A prepared medication for R38. RN A placed 10 medications in a cup which included, Digoxin (used to treat Atrial Fibrillation). RN A did not place Protonix (used to treat heartburn) in the mediation cup. In an observation on 6/29/23 at approximately 8:10 a.m., RN A entered R38's and obtained a blood pressure on a vital machine. R38's blood pressure was 118/71 and heart rate 57. R38 took the medication with water. RN A then exited the room and documented the medication administration. In an interview on 6/29/23 at 8:19 a.m., RN A reported R38 did not receive Protonix because it should be given at 6:00 a.m. Review of an admission record revealed, R38 admitted to the facility 1/30/22 with pertinent diagnosis which included Type 2 Diabetes and Atrial…
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 before2023-07-03 · 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 properly disinfect a Glucometer (medical device for determining the concentration of glucose in the blood) for one (R38) out of five residents reviewed for medication administration, resulting in the potential for the spread of infection. Findings include: In an observation on 6/29/23 at 7:35 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) A prepared supplies to perform a blood glucose check for Resident #38 (R38). RN A placed a glucometer, strips, lancet, and alcohol swab on a tray and entered R38's room. RNA wiped R38's finger with a alcohol swab, poked finger with a lancet, and applied blood to the strip in glucometer. RN A cleaned up supplies and exited the room. In an observation on 6/29/23 at 7:38 a.m., RN A wiped the front of the Glucometer with a alcohol swab and placed it on medication cart without a barrier. In an interview on 6/29/23 7:40 a.m., RN A reported the Glucometer is cleaned with a alcohol swab. RN A then stated, we have bleach wipes, but I do not use them until after all the blood sugars are taken. 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.
“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.
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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 19 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, per CMS)
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEXCARE HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/01/2013 |
| ENSIGN, THOMAS | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 08/09/2018 |
| JONES, JOE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/12/2019 |
| SANGSTER, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/04/2013 |
| NEXCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2005 |
| PERRY, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2015 |
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.
This home reported $1.2M 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 235207. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-11, 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.