Qualicare Nursing Home
695 E Grand Blvd, Detroit, MI 48207 · For profit - Corporation · 96 certified beds · (313) 925-6655 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2024
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 4 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 | 3 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 4 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 | 13.6% | 10.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.2% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 0.8% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.6% | 4.3% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.2% | 3.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.8% | 12.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.4% | 19.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.3% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 5.1% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.0% | 20.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.4% | 14.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 59.6% | 79.5% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 43.8% | 24.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.2% | 11.7% | 12.0% | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
38.1% 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 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 34% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% 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 | 38.1%CMS range 25.4–53.0 | 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 | 11.6%CMS range 7.5–16.0 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 88.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 96 beds and averages 92.6 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.14 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 2.85 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.39 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.58 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
17 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-07-24 · 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 This citation pertains to intake 2561232. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to timely and appropriately assess a new onset leg pain for one Resident (R901) of three residents reviewed for quality of care, resulting in R901 experiencing prolonged signs and symptoms of severe pain with subsequent hospitalization to address the pain. Findings include:On 7/23/25 at 12:52 p.m. the complainant was contacted regarding the allegations reported to the state agency. The complainant said on 7/7/25 approximately at 2:45 p.m., R901 could be heard screaming through the hall while receiving care. The hip area was observed by the complainant who stated, It looked like a bone was sticking out of the upper thigh. R901 was crying, screaming, and did not want the area touched. The nurse aid said the resident was complaining of pain to her right leg all weekend. The residents barely ate and didn't want to get out of bed. R901 told the complainant, I fell. The complainant also said they asked the day shift…
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 · Fcited before2026-02-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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 have an active 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 waterborne pathogens to exist and spread in the facility's plumbing system and an increased risk of respiratory infection among all residents in the facility. Findings Include:On 02/24/2026 at 10:02 AM, observation of the kitchen found a faucet on the back wall of the cookline. When the cold and hot handles were turned no water came out, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) B stated it is not used by kitchen staff.On 02/24/2026 at 10:45 AM, observation of the first-floor tub room revealed a domestic water fixture above the tub faucet. When turned on, slightly discolored water was released from the domestic water fixture for a few seconds before running clear.On 2/24/2026 at 11:08 AM, observation of the second-floor tub room found a domestic water fixture above the tub faucet. When the domestic water fixture was turned on, yellow…
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 · F2026-02-26 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake 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 maintain general cleanliness and repair of the premises. This resulted in an increased potential for contamination and a possible decrease in satisfaction of living, affecting all residents. Findings Include:On 02/24/2026 at 10:35 AM, the Kitchen Supervisor (KS) C was observed draining sanitizer from the three-compartment sink. As the sink drained, the discharge pipe began dripping onto the floor. At this time an interview conducted with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) B revealed that they were aware of the problem and had entered it into the maintenance repair system. When asked how long the issue had been documented in the system, no answer was provided.On 02/24/2026 at 10:53 AM, observation of the first-floor biohazard room found that the foot pedals that activate the sink faucet leaked when engaged.On 02/24/2026 at 11:01 AM, observation of the second-floor shower room revealed that the shower was missing the fixture cover leaving rough edges open and exposed.On 02/24/2026 at 11:02 AM, observation of the second-floor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure timely follow-up of a PASSAR referral and level II evaluation for one resident (R13) of two residents reviewed for PASSAR requirements. This failure placed (R13) at risk for not receiving specialized services and supports recommended for individuals with serious mental illness or cognitive impairment.Findings include:Record review revealed that R13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis as follows: Metabolic Encephalopathy, Vascular Dementia, Delusional Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder.Review of Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated for 2/11/2026 revealed R13 Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was an 8 out of 15, which indicated R13 was moderately impaired.On 02/26/2026 10:12 AM, Social Worker (SW) A was interviewed and said they were new to the position and acknowledged that (R13) should have been referred for a PASSAR II from when they were admitted back in August of 2025.On 02/26/26 at 11 AM, an interview 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 · D2025-02-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 one resident (R12) of two residents reviewed for dignity were aided with eating in a dignified manner, resulting in the potential for feelings of discomfort while eating. Findings include: On 2/10/25 at 1:28 p.m., during a meal observation (lunch), R12 was observed sitting up in bed, being assisted with eating by CENA D. CENA D was observed standing over R12 while putting food in the resident's mouth. While the resident was chewing the food, CENA D had the fork close to the resident's face, before allowing time for the resident to chew the food that was already in the mouth before giving more. CENA D was queried about standing while assisting the resident while eating. CENA D stated, I didn't bring one (a chair). There wasn't enough chairs in the dining room to grab one. CENA D continued to provide eating assistance while standing over the resident. On 2/12/25 at 12:51 p.m. while walking pass R12's room, the resident was sitting up…
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 · D2025-02-12 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or legal representative formulated an Advance Directive to grant and/or withhold life sustaining treatment (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/CPR, Artificial Nutrition/Peg Tube, Artificial Hydration/ IV, and Diagnostic Testing) according to their wishes upon admission for two residents (R45 and R55) of four residents reviewed for advance directives, potentially resulting in inaccurate life sustaining or life withholding medical treatment. Findings include: R55 On [DATE] at 1:39 p.m. R55 was observed in the room resting in bed. R55 presented as alert, oriented to person, place, and situation. R55 was queried about the facility initiating an advance directive. R55 said the social worker came to the room and discussed it with the resident yesterday ([DATE]). R55 was asked about having any advance directive discussions with anyone from the facility prior to [DATE]. R55 could not confirm prior discussions. R55 verified 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 before2025-02-12 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that one resident's (R73) medications were properly stored during medication administration of three residents reviewed for medication pass. Findings include: While observing medication pass on the second floor with Registered Nurse, (RN) E, medications were observed in a cup on the top of the medication cart. RN E walked away from the medications on top of the cart, leaving the medications unattended. RN E was observed to take vitals on another resident (R33) down the hallway. RN E returned to the cart and prepared R33's medications then left the cart again to administer R33 medications. When RN E returned to the cart, they were queried about the medications that were left in the medication cup on top of the cart. RN E explained R73 was sleeping and they were going to try later to give them the medications. RN E said they held on to them, but they should have locked them in the drawer. The unit manager, Licensed Practical Nurse, (LPN) B came to the cart where they observed the medications that were…
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 · D2025-02-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that one resident (R73) of reviewed during medication administration medications were properly stored. Findings include: While observing medication pass on the second floor with Registered Nurse, (RN) E, medications were observed in a cup on the top of the medication cart. RN E walked away from the medications on top of the cart, leaving the medications unattended. RN E was observed to take vitals on another resident (R330 down the hallway. RN E returned to the cart and prepared R33's medications then left the cart again to administer R33 medications. When RN E returned to the cart, they were queiried about the medications that were left in the medication cup on top of the cart. RN E explained R73 was sleeping and they were going to try later to give them the medications. RN E said they held on to them, but they should have locked them in the drawer. The unit manager, Licensed Practical Nurse, (LPN) B came to the cart where they observed the medications that were sitting in a cup on top of the cart. 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 · D2024-07-24 · 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
This citation pertains to intake MI00145673. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for one resident (R903) out one resident reviewed for elopement, resulting in the resident leaving the facility, unbeknownst to staff, for six and a half hours. Findings Include: Record review of R903's electronic medical records (EMR) revealed admission into the facility on 7/2/24 with a diagnosis of a pneumothorax (collapsed lung). According to the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 7/9/24, R903 had intact cognition with a score of 15 out of 15. Record review of R903's Progress Notes dated 7/13/24 at 10:05 AM, Note Text: this writer was approached by physical therapist stating he was unable to locate resident to perform therapy services. writer checked room and resident was not in his room. Code was called, all rooms, bathrooms, shower rooms checked for resident. basement and activity rooms checked could not locate resident. this writer called number on face sheet and family member stated he had left the facility she then put resident 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 This citation pertains to intakes MI00143423 and MI00144201. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent verbal abuse for one (R801) of four residents reviewed for abuse resulting in feelings of anger. Findings include: The State Agency received a Facility Reported Incident (FRI) on 4/14/24 at 6:11 PM reporting an allegation of verbal abuse from staff to resident. On 4/22/24 the facility submitted an investigation summary that substantiated verbal abuse between Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A and R801. According to the Investigation Summary, on 4/14/24 at approximately 6:00 PM CNA A called R801 a mean hateful bitch during delivery of care. CNA A was terminated from employment at the facility and reported to law enforcement and the State Nurse Aide Registry. On 5/9/24 at 10:00 AM, R801 was observed in the day room seated in her wheelchair. During interview the resident did not recall the specifics of the reported incident but did say, They get angry with me sometimes 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 · D2024-03-15 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to update a PASSAR (Preadmission Screening/ Annal Resident Review) Level 1 Screening form for one resident (R7) of two residents reviewed for PASSARs, resulting in the potential for the resident to not be screened for the need of mental health services. Findings include: A review of R7's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) revealed R7 was admitted to the facility 12/11/23. R7 had the following medical diagnoses: Vascular Dementia, Schizoaffective Disorder, and bipolar disorder. A review of R7's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 12/18/23 revealed R7 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9 out of 15 (moderate cognitive impairment). A review of R7's PASSAR Level 1 Screening form dated 12/12/23 revealed the Section II-screening criteria had all No's documented, this documentation meant that R7 did not have a diagnosis of mental illness or dementia, was not being treated for mental illness and dementia. On 3/13/24 at 2:00PM Social Worker (SW) D was queried about the documentation on the PASSAR Level 1 screening and R7'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.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY This citation pertains to Intake MI00138460. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide showers for one resident (R101) out of 4 residents reviewed for ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care. Findings include: A review of R101's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) revealed R101 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R101 had the following medical diagnoses: osteoarthritis (arthritis of the bone), muscle weakness, and difficulty walking. A review of R101's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 6/13/23 revealed R101 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 15/15 (cognitively intact). According to the MDS, R101 required supervision with showers/bathes. A review R101's ADL care plan, with an initiated date of 6/8/23, revealed R101 required extensive one person assistance with bathing. A review of R101's shower/bathing documentation from 6/8/23 through 7/7/23 revealed the following missed shower dates: 8/12/23, 8/15/23, and 8/22/23. R101 missing 3 out of 7 scheduled shower days. On 3/15/24…
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 · D2024-03-15 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 pertains to Intake MI00138460. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed initiate a wound consult order in a timely manner for one resident (R101) out of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, resulting in the potential in delayed treatment of a pressure ulcer. Findings include: A review of R101's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) revealed R101 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R101 had the following medical diagnoses: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, local infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and difficulty walking. A review of R101's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 6/13/23 revealed R101 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 15/15 (cognitively intact). The MDS documented R101 needed moderate assistance with bed mobility and maximal assistance with transfers. According to the MDS, R101 was at risk for pressure ulcers, and R101 used a pressure reducing device for their bed. A review of R101's pressure ulcer care plan, with an initiated date of 7/3/23,…
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 · D2024-03-15 · 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 provide restorative services as ordered to maintain range of motion (ROM), and mobility for one resident (R22) of nine residents reviewed for range of motion, resulting in the potential for a decline in range of motion, and mobility. Findings include: On 3/12/24 at 10:17 AM R22 was observed in bed wearing a hospital style gown. When R22 was asked about getting up and dressed R22 stated They are not getting me out of bed, and I want to get out of bed. I want to do my exercises. On 3/12/24 at 3:30 PM R22 was observed in bed wearing a hospital style gown. R22 stated They didn't get me up today, no exercise. On 3/13/24 at 2:00 PM R22 was observed in bed wearing a hospital style gown. R22 stated No one got me up or helped give me exercises. I want to get moving. Record review of R22's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed admitted to facility on 1/10/2024 diagnoses included osteomyelitis, sacral pressure ulcer stage four, obesity, left above…
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 · D2024-03-15 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide 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 This citation pertains to Intake MI00142235. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide indwelling catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to assist with urination) care and document urine out put for one resident (R100) out of three people reviewed for catheters. Findings include: A review of R100 EMR (Electronic Medical Record) revealed R100 was admitted on [DATE] and discharged [DATE]. R100 had the following medical diagnoses: Sepsis, Urinary Tract Infection, and Bacteremia (Bacteria in the blood). A review of the MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 9/8/23 revealed R100 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 9/15 (moderately cognitively impaired). According to the MDS, R100 had an indwelling catheter and was dependent with toilet hygiene. A review of R100's catheter care plan, with an initiated date of 1/7/23, revealed, (R100) is at risk for urinary tract infection and catheter-related trauma: has Indwelling (name of) Catheter related to Neurogenic Bladder .Provide…
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 · D2024-03-15 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 consistently weigh and document weights for four consecutive weeks for one resident (R95) of three residents reviewed for nutrition/weights. Findings include: A review of R95's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R95 was admitted to the facility 2/22/24. R95 had the following medical diagnoses: Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and Disease of the Larynx. A review of R95's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed R95 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 (cognitively intact). According to the MDS, R7 coughs and chokes when eating or swallowing medication and receives feeding through a PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy) tube (a tube that allows direct access to the stomach). A review of R95's Nutritional and Hydration care dated 2/23/24 revealed, Interventions .Obtain weekly weights x 4 weeks, then monthly, if stable. A review of R95's documented weights in the EMR revealed weights were obtained on the following days:…
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 before2024-03-15 · 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 ensure proper storage of nasal cannula tubing for one resident (R8) out of two residents reviewed for respiratory care, and cover a linen cart during transport resulting in the potential for cross-contamination. Findings include: On 3/12/24 at 10:00 AM R8's oxygen nasal canula was observed lying directly on the oxygen condenser not in bag. When asked do you wear the oxygen R8 stated I wear the oxygen at night, I don't wear it during the day. The cord is usually placed on the oxygen machine. On 3/12/24 at 3:47 PM R8's oxygen canula was observed lying directly on the oxygen condenser not in a bag. On 3/13/24 at 8:13AM Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A was observed removing the oxygen canula off R8 and placed the oxygen canula under R8's pillow on the bed not in a bag. On 3/13/24 at 12:49 PM, R8's nasal canula was observed directly under the pillow on the bed. On 3/13/24 at 1:58 PM, CNA A was interviewed and said there is no storage bag…
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 CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE — 81 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 | 2.8 | +2.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 80 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 80; lowest-rated first.
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| QAZI, MOHAMMAD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/21/1998 |
| KHAN, ANIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/21/1998 |
| CIENA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/25/2025 |
| DAVIS, HEATHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/06/2023 |
| RASHEED, SHABANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. 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 235622. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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.