Jamieson Nursing Home
790 S U.S. Highway 23, Box 369, Harrisville, MI 48740 · For profit - Corporation · 39 certified beds · (989) 724-6889 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 federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (15% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 16.7% | 10.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.6% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 16.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 3.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.1% | 12.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.2% | 19.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 15.6% | 5.1% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.8% | 20.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.8% | 14.8% | 17.1% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 39 beds and averages 20.5 residents a day — about 53% occupied, or roughly 18 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 2.87 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.01 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.51 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 2.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.86 on weekdays — about the same on weekends as weekdays. RN hours go from 1.03 to 0.93 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 15% 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.
16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · F2026-01-07 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
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 a Registered Nurse (RN) was on duty for eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week potentially affecting all 21 residents residing in the facility. Findings include:A review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staffing Data Report for the 4th quarter of 2025 (July 1 to September 30) revealed the facility triggered for no RN staffing.A review of requested Daily Staffing Sheets from the 4th quarter of 2025 revealed the following dates without RN staffed: 7/4/2025, 7/12/2025, 8/10/2025, 9/1/2025On 1/7/26 at 11:00 AM, Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was interviewed regarding RN coverage and explained on 7/4/2025 and 7/12/2025, the Director of Nursing (DON) was working the morning shift, however, is salary and does not punch in. The NHA went on to explain that on 8/10/2025 and 9/1/2025 the DON scheduled two Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) to work both the morning and night shift and confirmed there was no RN coverage those days.Review of the facilities' 'punch cards'…
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 · E2026-01-07 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — patternEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 appropriate assessments and documentation warranting the use of a physical restraint for four Resident (R #5, R #11, R #18, R #20) of twelve residents reviewed for restraints, resulting in the potential for feelings of helplessness, agitation, decreased physical functioning and injury. Findings include: R #5 (R5) Review of R5's face sheet, dated 7/24/25, revealed admission to the facility on 6/4/25 with diagnoses including weakness and dementia. Review of R5's minimum data set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/2/25, Section GG revealed R5 required partial/moderate assist for toileting hygiene, shower/bathing, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, and putting on/taking off footwear. R5's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 3/15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. On 1/5/26 at 2:11 p.m., R5's bed was observed against the wall in their room, limiting access in or out on one side, and a bed alarm place. On 1/7/26 at…
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 · D2026-01-07 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement interventions, assess accurately, and prevent the development of a stage II pressure ulcer for one Resident (Resident #2) of two residents reviewed for pressure ulcer development. Findings include:Resident #2 (R2) R2's face sheet revealed admission to the facility on 7/1/25, with diagnoses including dementia, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension.Review of R2's comprehensive minimum data set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/23/25, Section GG revealed R2 required substantial/maximal assistance on staff for activities of daily living cares including toileting, shower/bathing, upper/lower body dressing, personal hygiene, and putting on/taking off footwear. R2's brief interview of mental status (BIMS) revealed severe cognitive impairment. Section M revealed R2 had no pressure ulcers, was at risk for developing pressure ulcers, and lacked any skin treatments or interventions. Review of R2's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/15/25, Section M revealed R2 had developed a stage II pressure ulcer.On 1/5/26 at…
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 before2025-01-24 · 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 monitor operation of the dish machine to assure dishes, utensils, and other food preparation equipment were properly sanitized. This deficient practice had the potential to promote food borne illness amongst any or all of the facility population of 18 Residents. Findings include: On 1/22/25 at 1:00 PM, the kitchen staff were observed operating the chlorine based cold temperature dish machine. (This was a chemical sanitizing dish machine which used chlorine rather than hot water plus chemicals in the ware washing process.) Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) A was asked to measure the chemical sanitizer dispensing in the machine. A quaternary strip was used (which cannot measure chlorine present to sanitize the dishes or food preparation equipment being washed in the dish machine). When the strips were examined and determined to be unable to measure the sanitizer, the kitchen staff found one roll of chlorine strips in a bag labeled expires 2/14/24. The dish machine was retested and while the strip turned dark,…
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 · F2025-01-24 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement and develop an enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) policy, and update infection control policies annually based on standards of practice. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents regarding infection control practices. Findings include: On 1/21/25 at 11:00 AM, during the entrance conference, the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) were asked to provide the infection control program policies for the facility. Resident 14 (R14) Review of R14's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment of 15, indicative of intact cognition. Review of R14's care plan, date revised 12/28/24, read in part, .Focus: [R14] has a catheter: Neurogenic bladder. Goal: [R14] will remain free from catheter-related trauma .Interventions: Check tubing for kinks 1 x and prn (as needed) each shift. Monitor and document intake 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 · E2025-01-24 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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 serve the correct portions as planned on the menu. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect the nutritional status of all 18 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: During an observation in the dietary department on 1/21/25 at 12:48 PM, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) A was serving lunch of split pea soup, ham salad sandwich, mixed fruited jello and beverage of choice. The following portion sizes were served: - Regular diet: 4 oz (ounces) split pea soup, ½ ham salad sandwich, - Puree diet: 2 oz split pea soup, 2 oz pureed ham salad bread mixture The planned menu was reviewed and revealed: - Regular diet: 8 oz split pea soup, ½ ham salad sandwich, - Puree diet: 4 oz (#8 scoop) split pea soup, 2 oz (#16 scoop) pureed ham salad bread mixture During an observation of lunch service on 1/22/25 at 12:30 PM in the dietary department, the following portion sizes of hot pork sandwich (pork over a slice of bread with gravy) mashed potatoes, mixed vegetables, and pears were served: -…
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 · E2025-01-24 · tag F0948 — patternEnsure that paid feeding assistants have the training they need.
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 train non-licensed employees with the State-approved training course for feeding assistance to residents. This deficient practice put vulnerable residents at risk of complications associated with being fed for all residents needing feeding assistance (approximately six residents). Findings include: During the breakfast observation in the dining room on 1/22/25 at 8:34 AM, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) A was observed feeding Resident #4 (R4) a pureed diet. When asked why she was feeding R4, CDM A said assistance was needed as other staff were not available. When asked about the risk involved, CDM replied that all residents on a pureed diet were at risk for choking. CDM A stated, Occasionally they ask me to help out and feed . When asked if she had taken the State-approved training program for feeding assistants, CDM A said the DON (Director of Nursing) gave me a refresher when I started 3 maybe 4 years ago. During an interview on 1/22/25 at 10:35 AM, the DON stated, I taught (CDM A), not a class - just…
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 · D2025-01-24 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to regularly assess the nutritional needs and follow the physician's diet order for two Residents (#11 & #18) of three residents reviewed for nutritional needs. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for nutritional compromise, undetected physical decline, and weight loss. Findings include: Resident #11 (R11) The medical record for R11 revealed an admission date of 11/25/21. Current diagnoses for R11 included: dementia, anxiety, depression, history of stroke, and history of traumatic brain injury. During meal rounds on 1/21/25 at 1:35 PM, R11 was observed in the dining room eating a pureed consistency lunch. She consumed 100% of her meal. The tray card read Regular Diet, Regular Texture although she was served a puree consistency diet. The tray card also included: Dislikes: .Split Pea Soup . R11 received pureed split pea soup. The medical chart for R11 revealed an active care plan which included, (R11) is at risk for nutritional deficits r/t (related to) many diagnoses that may affect nutrition…
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 · D2025-01-24 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide rationale on pharmacy medication regimen review (MRR) recommendations being declined by the physician for two Residents (#6 and #11) of five residents reviewed for MRR's. Findings include: Resident #11 (R11) Review of R11's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/25/21 with diagnoses including dementia, depression, and anxiety. A review of the 12/31/24 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed a score of 3 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicative of severely impaired cognition. Review of R11's pharmacy recommendation, dated 11/26/24, read in part, Comment: [R11] has a PRN (as needed) order for an anxiolytic, which has been in place for greater than 14 days without a stop date: Lorazepam 0.5 mg (milligrams), give 1 tablet by mouth twice daily as needed. Recommendation: Please discontinue PRN Lorazepam .If the medication cannot be discontinued at this time, please document the indication for use, the intended duration of therapy, and the rationale for the extended time period .…
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 · D2025-01-24 · 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to indicate a specific duration (end date) for PRN (as needed) psychotropic (drug that affects brain activity) medication, provide gradual dose reductions for psychotropic medications and include non-pharmacological interventions when psychotropic medications were prescribed for three Residents (#6, #11, and #12) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Resident #11 (R11) Review of R11's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/25/21 with diagnoses including dementia, depression, and anxiety. A review of the 12/31/24 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed a score of 3 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severely impaired cognition. Review of R11's, physician orders, dated January 2025, revealed a signature from the physician on 1/8/25 and an order dated 11/4/24 for Lorazepam 0.5 mg tablet, give 1 tablet by mouth twice daily as needed. No indication for use or end date for PRN Lorazepam was present on the physician orders. Review of R11's care plan,…
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 · Fcited before2024-02-07 · 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 properly store potentially hazardous food and maintain a kitchen environment free of harborage conditions for pests, resulting in an increased risk of foodborne illness and potential for pests on the premise, affecting all residents that consume food from the kitchen. Findings include: On 2/5/24 at 11:28 AM, during an inspection of the kitchen, [NAME] C stated that the 1st section of the walk-in cooler was currently not working and they are working on getting it repaired. A bottle of opened ranch dressing was observed to be stored in the warm 1st section and the manufacturer's label states Keep Refrigerated. Additionally, an opened jar of sweet pickle relish was observed to be stored in the warm 1st section and the manufacturer's label states Refrigerate after opening. According to the facility's policy, Cold Food Storage Protocol, dated 10/28/2008, it notes, Policy: All perishable food will be stored according to HACCP guidelines. These food items will be maintained at 41*F or colder. According to the 2017…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-07 · tag F0645 — patternPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 requirements for Preadmission Screening/Annual Resident Review (PASARR) were reviewed and revised annually for five Residents (R1, R11, R13, R14, and R16) of seven residents reviewed for PASSAR requirements, resulting in the potential for unmet mental health and/or intellectual/developmental disability care needs. Findings include: Resident #1 (R1) Review of R1's medical records, revealed a PASARR form (Form DCH-3877 [State Agency] used to determine mental health needs) dated 8/5/22 and indicated a Level II evaluation. There was no Mental Illness/Intellectual/Developmental Disability/Related condition exemption Criteria Certification. The PASARR dated 8/5/22 revealed an original admission to the facility on 2/19/19. No annual review documentation could be found. The 'medical diagnoses' indicated R1 had resided at the facility since 2019 with diagnoses that included dementia and major depressive disorder. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain smooth floors, secure free-standing wardrobes, and secure riser lids for the septic system, resulting in the potential for falls and entrapment, affecting residents, staff, and the public. Findings include: On 2/5/24 at 11:50 AM, the adhesive tile floor at the end of the hall, near rooms 101/102, was observed to have multiple tile squares peeling up, creating a tripping hazard. The peeling tiles were easily catching the Surveyors foot, while walking over them. An emergency exit was observed at the end of the hall, next to the damaged tiles. On 2/5/24 at 2:50 PM, the free-standing wardrobes in resident room #'s 122- 128 and 163-170 were observed to not be fastened to the wall. Multiple wardrobes were observed to not be level on the floor. The wardrobes have the potential to tip over when the door was opened, and weight was applied to the door. On 2/6/24 at 9:10 AM the septic tank riser at the south west drain system was observed to be damaged and duct taped together. Additionally, all four septic tank risers were not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication storage room was free of expired medications and failed to securely store medications, for one of one medication rooms and one of one medication carts reviewed for medication storage. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for administration of medications with reduced intended effect. Findings include: On 2/5/24 at 2:40 PM, an observation was made of the medication storage room with the Director of Nursing (DON). In the medication room the following items were found to be expired: a.) name brand needle 22-gauge with lot number 365608 and expiration date of 1/31/23 count seven; b.) name brand needle 21-gauge with lot number 365607 and expiration date of 3/31/23 count six; c.) name brand syringe with attached needle size 3 milliliters and 21-gauge inch and one half with lot number 7031546 and expiration date of 1/31/22 count twelve; d.) hydrocortisone cream, 2 ounces, with lot number 0110387 and expiration…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-07 · tag F0923 — patternHave enough outside ventilation via a window or mechanical ventilation, or both.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain exhaust ventilation in resident bathrooms, resulting in the potential for odors, affecting room #'s 167, 168, 169, and 170. Findings include: On 2/5/24 at 2:50 PM, the exhaust ventilation for the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] was tested using a paper towel to test the suction of the vent. The paper towel showed no pull from the exhaust ventilation. During an interview on 2/6/24 at 9:05 AM, Maintenance Director F was queried on the ventilation system and stated that the two roof top air units were iced over. Maintenance Director F continued to state that a staff member turned on the air conditioning (AC) unit two days ago, causing the roof top units to build up ice. Maintenance Director F confirmed that the residents bathroom exhaust vents are not working properly for this reason. On 2/6/24 at 10:45 AM, resident bathroom exhaust fans for room #'s 167, 169, and 170 were observed to not be functioning using the paper towel test.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-07 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate monitoring and assessment for a change in condition for one Resident (#4) of one residents reviewed for hospitalization. This deficient practice resulted in the potential for worsening in condition and delay in treatment. Findings Include: Resident #4 (R4) Review of R4's medical record revealed initial admission to the facility on 8/28/21 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke), hypertension (high blood pressure), and frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder (a type of dementia) . Review of R4's most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/19/23, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1, indicative of severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident Transfer Form revealed R4 was transferred from the facility to the local hospital on [DATE]. The reason for transfer was listed as a decrease in hemoglobin (the protein contained in red blood cells that is responsible for delivery of oxygen to…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| SMITH, JAMES | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2009 |
| SMITH, SALLY | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2009 |
| WILKINS, LORI | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2016 |
| RAO, RAJ | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/18/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 4 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.
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 235628. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-07, 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.