Edison Christian Health Center
1000 Edison Ave NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 · Non profit - Other · 136 certified beds · (616) 453-2475 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
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) | 5 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 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.1% | 10.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.8% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.0% | 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 | 3.4% | 3.0% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.8% | 12.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.4% | 19.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 5.1% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.1% | 20.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.3% | 14.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.9% | 1.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.1% | 79.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.00 | 1.84 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.25 | 1.64 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 6.2–16.4 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.52 | 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 136 beds and averages 92.2 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 44 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.65 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.96 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.67 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.87 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.06 to 0.69 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-09-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain best practices in the kitchen resulting in the potential to spread food borne illness to all residents that consume food from the kitchen.Findings include:On 9/15/25 at 9:32 AM, An interview with Production Manager (PM) SS found that staff check dates of food products daily. Further review of the walk-in cooler found an open package of roast beef with no date, a container of cut pineapple with no date, pumpkin dated 8/25 to 8/31, a bag of kielbasa sausages open with no date, and a container of scrambled eggs uncovered and not dated. On 9/15/25 at 9:38 AM, Observation of the two door Traulsen cooler found a container of leaf lettuce dated 9/6 to 9/9. According to the 2022 FDA Food Code section 3-501.17 Ready-to-Eat, Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food, Date Marking. (A) Except when PACKAGING FOOD using a REDUCED OXYGEN PACKAGING method as specified under S 3-502.12, and except as specified in (E) and (F) of this section,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2025-09-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY DPS #1 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 residents in the following areas:Findings include: DPS #2 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a sanitary and comfortable environment in 1 (Resident #18) of 19 residents reviewed for a clean, homelike environment, resulting in a build of up dust and debris on surfaces in the resident's room and the potential for decreased satisfaction with the living environment.Findings include: On 9/15/25 at 10:24 AM, Observation of the Main dining room found the cabinet underneath the ice machine with an accumulation of black staining and debris. On 9/15/25 at 10:38 AM, Observation of the [NAME] dining room found trash bags stored underneath the sink, with the cabinet having a large hole in the back where plumbing comes from the wall. Further…
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 · D2025-09-17 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement an person-centered care plans in 1 (Resident #57) of 19 residents reviewed for care planning, resulting in the potential for unmet care needs. Findings include: Resident #57 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident # 57 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing food or liquids) and mild intellectual disabilities. Review of Resident #57's Care Plan revealed, (Resident #57) has potential for alteration in nutrition/hydration status r/t (related to) therapeutic diet, meds which may affect appetite/wt (weight) . hx (history) of swallowing issue at previous facility .spilling food d/t (due to) shaking hands. Date initiated: 1/20/25. Interventions: Diet as ordered: Consistent carbohydrate, regular texture, thin liquids. Small portions to promote weight loss and glycemic control. NO straws and weighted utensils. Date initiated: 1/20/25. Revision:…
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 · D2025-09-17 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent significant medication errors in 1 (Resident #65) of 5 residents reviewed for medication errors, resulting in Resident #65 receiving an unprescribed antiseizure medication and the potential for adverse side effects. Findings include: Resident #65 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #65 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses which included severe intellectual disabilities and chronic pain. Review of Resident #65's Progress Note dated 9/8/25 and documented by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) BB revealed, Due to med (medication error), full head to toe performed (assessment). Resident appears at baseline, other than drowsiness, denies pain when asked, responds yes when asked if sleepy. Vitals: BP (Blood pressure): 131/84, P (pulse): 78, O2 (oxygen saturation) 93 % RA (room air), RR (respiration rate): 16, T(temperature): 97.8. Resident ate 0-25% of lunch and did not drink well this shift. Would purse…
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 before2024-09-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among all residents. Findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen, starting at 9:48 AM on 9/10/24, an interview with Food Service Director (FSD) Z found that the facility date marks potentially hazardous food items for a three-day discard. Observation inside the walk-in cooler found a half gallon of skim milk dated 8/18 to 8/21 and an open thickened dairy beverage dated 8/18 to 8/21. Observation of the preparation cooler, at 10:02 AM on 9/10/24, found a container of egg salad and a container of tomato soup with no dates to indicate the discard for each product. Further observation found an open package of hot dogs dated 9/5 to 9/8. Observation of the South dining room, at 11:15 AM on 9/10/24, found an open thickened cranberry juice with no date to indicate discard. the item states its good for 7 days after opening.…
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 before2023-08-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: 1. Date mark and discard potentially hazardous foods; 2. Properly restrain facial hair while working with food; 3. Ensure proper working order of dish machine; 4. Clean non-food contact surfaces to sight and tough; and 5. Ensure proper cooling of potentially hazardous foods. These conditions resulted in an increased risk of contaminated foods and an increased risk of food borne illness that affected 94 residents who consume food from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1. In an observation on 8/28/23 beginning at 11:40 a.m., reviewed the main facility kitchen. Observed two large, white, rolling bins below the counter, which contained flour and sugar. No dates noted to indicate when these items were placed in the bins (no open dates or use by dates). In an observation on 8/28/23 beginning at 11:40 a.m., reviewed the main facility kitchen. Observed the following items in the reach-in cooler: An opened 12 ounce container of [NAME] mayonnaise,…
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 · E2023-08-30 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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 provide a dignified dining experience in 11 residents (Resident #11, #395, #78, #73, #18, #34, #44, #53, #41) observed during dining, from a total sample of 20 residents, resulting in the potential for decreased self-esteem and feelings of disappointment with the dining experience. Findings include: During an observation on 08/30/23 at 08:28 AM in the west dining room, eight residents (Resident #11, #395, #78, #73, #18, #89, #34, and #35) were seated at tables, 5 CNA's (Certified Nursing Assistant) were waiting for trays to be prepared and Kitchen Staff (KS) EEE was plating food. At 8:32 AM a cart with 6 meal trays, for residents that were eating in their rooms was wheeled out of the dining room. During subsequent observations on 08/30/23 at 8:33 AM, an additional unknown female resident walked into the west dining room and was immediately served her breakfast. Resident #395 was observed sitting at a table alone, watching the staff…
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 · D2023-08-30 · 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 (1) obtain a physician order for medicated topical skin creme and (2) prevent Certified Nursing Assistants from administering medicated topical skin cream required to be administered by licensed nursing staff for 1 resident (Resident #8) of 2 residents reviewed for skin conditions, resulting in the potential for residents to have received inappropriate or inadequate care, lack of communication among care providers, and the potential for the residents to not meet their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings include: Resident #8 In an observation on 8/28/2023 at 12:02 in Resident #8's room, Resident #8 asked Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) EE to put Biofreeze Cream on his legs. Two tubes of Biofreeze Cream were found in Resident #8's bedside drawer and rubbed onto his legs and feet by CNA EE. Review of Resident #8's electronic medical record on 8/28/2023 at 12:15 PM revealed no order for Biofreeze Cream. In an interview on 8/28/2023 at 12:26 PM, CNA EE reported CNAs are…
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 · D2023-08-30 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 discontinue psychotropic PRN (as needed) medications after 14 days and/or document clinical rationale and indicate a timeframe for extend PRN psychotropic medication use in 1 of 5 residents (Resident #38) reviewed for psychotropic medications, resulting in the potential for unnecessary medication use and inability to monitor the effectiveness of the prescribed treatment due to lack of documented supporting evidence. Findings include: Resident #38 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #38 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: dementia and anxiety. Review of Resident #38's Physician Orders revealed, Xanax Oral Tablet 0.5 MG (Alprazolam) (a medication used to treat anxiety) Give 1 tablet by mouth as needed for Anxiety/Agitation Not to exceed to 2.0mg per day with scheduled dose. Active 7/10/2023 at 2:30 PM. The medication order did not include a stop date. In an interview on 08/30/23 at 11:06…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DUEMLER, RONALD | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 01/01/2016 |
| HEEREMA, ESTHER | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 03/16/2024 |
| HORJUS, JAMES | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 09/01/1992 |
| BAUER, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/14/2023 |
| BEUTE, CORA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/08/2022 |
| BILLINGSLEY, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/08/2022 |
| ENGELSMA, YVONNE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/10/2020 |
| FAASSE, MARTIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/09/2021 |
| MAST, KRISTIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/09/2021 |
| MCQUADE, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/12/2024 |
| MYERS, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/09/2021 |
| RITTNER, ALIDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/12/2024 |
| THENN, SHARON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/08/2022 |
| VANSWEDEN, KAREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/12/2019 |
| VERBEEK, RENZ | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/10/2020 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 235339. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-17, 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.