PortagePointe
500 Campus Drive, Hancock, MI 49930 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (906) 483-1000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 2 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 | 26.7% | 10.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.6% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 9.1% | 1.5% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.5% | 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 | 6.9% | 3.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.8% | 12.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.7% | 19.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.3% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.1% | 5.1% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.2% | 20.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.6% | 14.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.07 | 1.84 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.84 | 1.64 | 1.80 | typical |
§ 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 0.10 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 6% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 — 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 — 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 60 beds and averages 58.0 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 2 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 5.45 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.14 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.25 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 4.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.65 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.29 to 0.78 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-05-29 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dietary department was provided with sufficient and properly trained staff to carry out the functions and duties of the nutritional services department. This deficient practice has the potential to result in inadequate nutrition for all 56 residents. Findings include: On 5/28/25 at approximately 12:50 PM, an interview with Kitchen Manager (KM) C was conducted. It was learned KM C had not completed the Certified Dietary Manager's (CDM) exam and had been in this position for over a year. KM C stated he had completed the CDM coursework but was waiting to schedule his exam date. KM C confirmed he is completing resident nutritional assessments despite not taking his exam. The FDA Food Code 2017 states: Knowledge 2-102.11 Demonstration. Based on the RISKS inherent to the FOOD operation, during inspections and upon request the PERSON IN CHARGE shall demonstrate to the REGULATORY AUTHORITY knowledge of foodborne disease prevention, application of the HAZARD Analysis and CRITICAL CONTROL POINT principles, and 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 · Fcited before2025-05-29 · 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 store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: A. Failure to properly label and date food products. B. Failure to ensure expired foods were discarded on or before the identified expiration date. C. Failure to ensure high temperature dish machines were routinely tested for proper sanitizing of food contact surfaces. These deficient practices had the potential to result in food borne illness among any or all the 56 residents in the facility. Findings include: The following were observed during the initial kitchen tour on 5/27/25 at 3:50 p.m. with Kitchen Manager (KM) C [NAME] House - 13 expired foods located in three refrigerators Delaware House - Four expired foods and three Potentially Hazardous Foods (PHF) not labeled with an open date located in the white refrigerator Bath House (currently used as storage and room for kitchen that is under construction) - 3…
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 · F2025-05-29 · tag F0813 — widespreadHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
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 implement its policy and procedure related to monitoring food brought in by visitors for residents and stored in refrigerators. This failure allowed unmarked and out dated food to be present in the refrigerator units potentially contributing to illness of any or all 56 residents using the units to store food. Findings include: On 5/27/25 at 3:50 p.m. an initial kitchen tour was conducted with Kitchen Manager (KM) C. The following items were observed throughout the tour: A. A glass pickle jar containing pickles and no label with a name, date, or any other identifying information B. Two health shakes, not purchased by the facility and no label with a name, date, or any other identifying information. An interview was conducted with KM C who confirmed that items brought into the facility should contain the residents name and date they were brought into the facility. Review of the facility's LTC (long term care) Food Brought in from Outside Sources Revised 1/13/23 read, in part, .Family/friends are to inform 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 · D2025-05-29 · 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 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were in place for a resident with a foley catheter (a tube inserted through the urethra to drain urine out of the body from the bladder) for one Resident (#26) of two residents reviewed for catheter care resulting in the potential for unnecessary catheter usage and increased potential for urinary tract infection. Findings include: Resident #26 (R26) Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed admission to the facility on 2/9/21, with active diagnoses that included: history of Urinary Tract Infections (UTI), Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, and anxiety disorder. MDS Section C revealed R26's cognitive skills were severely impaired and R26 rarely or never made decisions. During a phone interview on 5/27/25 at 2:09 p.m., Family Member (FM) B reported she was the responsible party for R26 and the facility did not call her to obtain permission for the foley catheter to be placed in R26's bladder. FM B stated,…
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 · F2024-05-08 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — widespreadEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure timely physician response to Medication Regimen Review (MRR) pharmacy recommendations for two Residents (R19 and R52) of five residents reviewed for MRR. This deficient practice has the potential to result in medication irregularities, excessive dosage, side effects, and adverse reactions. Findings include: Resident #19 (R19) A review of R19's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/5/23, revealed admission to the facility on [DATE], with active diagnoses that included: progressive neurological conditions, heart failure, hypertension, multiple sclerosis, anxiety, chronic pain, and depression. R19 scored 15 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of intact cognition. A review of care plan for R19 read in part, . medications sertraline (zoloft) and bupropion (wellbutrin) (psychotropic medications) used simultaneously may increase risk of side effects. A review of R19's monthly MRR by a Registered Pharmacist (RPh) G,…
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 before2024-05-08 · 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. Identify and implement corrective action in response to the mechanical dish machine's failure to demonstrate proper sanitizing, 2. Ensure proper air gaps were installed to avoid waste water backflow, 3. Ensure outdated time/temperature controlled food was was not accessible for use, 4. Ensure food trays being prepared for meal service did not become contaminated, 5. Demonstrate proper testing of sanitizing solution for meal preparation conutertops, and 6. Ensure dirty dishes and untensils following meal service were properly stowed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety potentially resulting in food borne illness among any and all 59 residents. Findings include: On 5/6/24 at approximately 3:00 PM, the three compartment sink in the Medora kitchen was observed to have all three sink compartments draining directly to the sanitary sewer, without an air gap or air break to prevent the back flow of contaminated…
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 before2024-05-08 · 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 Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an environment which was safe, functional and sanitary for residents, staff and visitors, as evidenced by the failure to provide adequate kitchen facilities for the storage, preparation and delivery of food for all 59 residents. This deficient practice resulted in kitchen space which was not equipped with food service equipment and space to meet minimum standards to provide for the dietary needs of the residents and had the potential to result in negative environmental impacts to residents, employees and visitors due to lack of appropriate ventilation, space and storage needs. Findings include: On 5/6/24 at 1:45 PM then throughout the remaining survey time (5/6/24 to 5/8/24), the dietary facilities were observed to be inadequate and dysfunctional for the storage, preparation and delivery of food. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all 59 residents. Observations included: 1. The main preparation kitchen had been…
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 · D2024-05-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely monitoring of blood glucose and administration of glucagon (emergency blood glucose elevating medication) for one Resident (R59) of five residents who were prescribed insulin and/or other blood glucose lowering medications. This deficient practice resulted in a delay in treatment for severe hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), and the potential for adverse neurological and physical outcomes for R59. Findings include: Review of R59's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/2/24, revealed R59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with active diagnoses that included: stroke, end stage renal disease (ESRD), diabetes mellitus, and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body). R59 scored 12 of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) reflective of moderate cognitive impairment, with the ability to understand others and be understood by others. Review of R59's care plans revealed the following focus and interventions:…
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 before2023-05-18 · 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 store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: 1. Failing to properly store food at proper temperature while waiting to be served. 2. Failing to properly store clean dishes, cooking equipment and utensils. 3. Failing to ensure one dish machine was operating according to manufacturer's standards. 4. Failing to dispense hand towels in a sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination. 5. Failing to maintain cooking equipment in a clean condition. 6. Failing to maintain drawer storage areas for utensils in a clean condition. 7. Failing to properly post signage at all handwash sinks in the kitchens and dining rooms. 8. Failing to provide appropriate shielded lighting fixtures over food preparation and service areas. 9. Failing to maintain cooking equipment, food preparation surfaces and freezers in good repair. 10. Failing to provide a three compartment sink for 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 · Fcited before2023-05-18 · 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 Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an environment which was safe, functional and sanitary for residents, staff and visitors, as evidenced by the failure to provide adequate kitchen facilities for the storage, preparation and delivery of food for all 59 residents. This deficient practice has resulted in kitchen space which is not equipped with minimum standard food service equipment and space to provide for the dietary needs of the residents and has the potential to result in negative environmental impacts to residents, employees and visitors due to the lack of appropriate ventilation, space and storage needs. Findings include: On 5/16/23 at 11:45 AM, the dietary facilities were observed to be dysfunctional and unsanitary for the storage, preparation and delivery of food to residents. Observations included: 1. The main preparation kitchen had been located in an Eden household kitchen/dining room designed space identified by the facility as the Medora household. Food…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 LIFEPOINT HEALTH — 8 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 | 3 of 5 | 4.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 7 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.1★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as an investment firm. That’s a fact worth knowing about who ultimately profits from the home. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- DSB ACQUISITION LLC — investment firm · 80.00% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PORTAGE HOLDING COMPANY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/17/2013 |
| HISTORIC LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/17/2013 |
| LEGACY LIFEPOINT HEALTH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/17/2013 |
| LIFEPOINT HOLDINGS 2 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/17/2013 |
| LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/17/2013 |
| PORTAGE HEALTH FOUNDATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2013 |
| PEKARSKE, EMILY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/05/2021 |
| HEINONEN, RYAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/10/2022 |
| GROOMS, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2016 |
| LAWRENCE, CHARLOTTE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/10/2022 |
| MONTE, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/17/2013 |
| POLITE, ELMER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/14/2020 |
| POPPELL, MARCUS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/16/2018 |
| RIALS, LOREN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/09/2023 |
| HSC MANAGER LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2013 |
7 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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 235624. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-29, 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.