Hillsdale Hospital McGuire & Macritchie Long Term
168 South Howell Street, Hillsdale, MI 49242 · Non profit - Other · 38 certified beds · (517) 437-5440 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- 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 (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.8% | 10.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.6% | 5.4% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 7.2% | 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 | 1.5% | 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 | 5.9% | 3.0% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.7% | 12.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.6% | 19.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.2% | 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 | 22.2% | 14.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 79.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.1% | 24.0% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.3% | 11.7% | 12.0% | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
72.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 128 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 20.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 65 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 72.1%CMS range 64.0–79.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.7%CMS range 7.9–14.6 | 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 | 20.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 18.5% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 20.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 93.1% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison 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 — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 8.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.2%CMS range 3.2–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.65 | 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 38 beds and averages 34.8 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 5.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.31 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.14 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 5.18 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.91 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.57 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% 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 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-10-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to: 1.) ensure the safety of resident during staff assisted transfer, 2.) implement care-planned interventions, and 3.) provide timely assessment and treatment for 1 of 3 sampled residents (R3) reviewed for accidents, resulting in actual harm for R3's fall during staff assisted transfer with displaced right femur spiral fracture on 3/31/24, delay in assessment and treatment, pain, and transfer to the hospital for surgical repair of right femur and treatment for multiple pulmonary emboli. Findings include: Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R3 was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE], with re-admission post hospital admission 4/18/24 following displaced spiral fracture of the right femur and multiple pulmonary emboli with other diagnoses that included muscle weakness, repeat falls, history right hip replacement, lumbar vertebra fracture(low back), heart failure, hypertension(high…
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 · D2025-12-22 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 provide justification for the continued use of a as needed antipsychotic beyond 14 days for one (Resident #27) out of five reviewed for medication review. Findings include: Review of the medical record reflected Resident #27 (R27) was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included history of falling and muscle weakness. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/29/25, reflected R27 scored 10 out of 15 (moderately impaired) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). Review of the Physician Order revealed an active order dated 10/8/25 for Ativan Oral Tablet 0.5 MG (Lorazepam), Give 0.5 mg by mouth every 12 hours as needed for Anxiety/Agitation. In an interview on 12/22/2025 at 10:15 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) C acknowledged that R27 had an as needed order that extended past the 14 days and that the expectation would be to discontinue the order after 14 days and reevaluate as…
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 · D2025-12-22 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the ombudsman in writing of a discharge in one (Resident #1) of one reviewed for discharge. Findings include:Review of the medical record reflected Resident #1 (R1) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 11/27/25, with diagnoses that included urinary tract infection. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/27/25, reflected R1 scored 14 out of 15 (cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). R1 was no longer in the facility. On 12/22/2025 at 10:44 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) C stated that the ombudsman was not notified of the discharge in writing.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-04 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 competently assess and monitor for changes in condition and notify the physician of pertinent findings in a timely manner for 1 residents (Resident #3) resulting in potential for unrecognized, clinically significant changes in condition. Findings include: Review of the Face Sheet and Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], reflected R3 was a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE], with re-admission post hospital admission 4/18/24 following displaced spiral fracture of the right femur and multiple pulmonary emboli with other diagnoses that included muscle weakness, repeat falls, history right hip replacement, lumbar vertebra fracture(low back), heart failure, hypertension(high blood pressure), and developmental delay. The MDS reflected R3 had a BIM (assessment tool) score of 13 which indicated her ability to make daily decisions was cognitively intact with no behaviors including rejection of care. Continued review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-04 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notification to the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of facility-initiated transfers/discharges over past 12 months, resulting in the potential for all residents to be discharged without an advocate who can inform them of their options and rights. Findings include: During an interview on 10/04/24 at 11:00 AM, Admission/Discharge (ADM) staff T responsible for providing residents and or responsible party discharge/transfer documents with Ombudsman and facility contact information at time of discharge or transfer. Reported no knowledge of communication with Ombusdman related to resident discharges. During an interview on 10/04/24 at 11:40 AM, Nurse Manager B reported not aware of system in place to report resident transfers and/or discharges to the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman on a routine basis and not aware of regulation.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-04 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 1) accurately assess pressure ulcers (Resident #6) and 2) failed to prevent a pressure ulcer (Resident #27) in 2 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers resulting in the development of a pressure ulcer and inaccurate assessments. Findings include: Resident #6 (R6) Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 (R6) was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, type 2 diabetes and heart failure. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed R6 had severe cognitive impairment. On 10/01/24 at 10:41 AM, R6 was observed in bed, dressed in a nightgown, and listening to the television. R6 smiled and interacted when interviewed. R6 acknowledged that she had a wound (pressure ulcer) on her bottom, however, reported that her memory was not good therefore, could not recall any details regarding the pressure ulcer. Review of the facility provided Pressure Ulcer history timeline revealed R6…
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 · D2024-10-04 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 nursing staff was evaluated for appropriate competencies and skill sets resulting in the potential for residents of the facility to be unable to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and the potential for decreased resident safety for all residents who resided in the facility. Findings include: NHA A provided one Incident Accident Report for R3 on 10/02/24 at 1:55 PM, dated 4/3/24 at 8:25 p.m. Review of the report titled, Fall During Staff Assist, reflected, Incident Description .In response to CNA[Certified Nurse Aide] call for assistance the Resident Writer walked into Resident room followed by Day-shift nurse to discover Resident suspended by arms in sling on sit-to-stand in upright position with bilateral legs bend to the downwards. Continued review of the incident report reflected, Reported by CNA, Resident let go of sit-to-stand bar during transfer, knees together and bent over to one side. The report reflected R3 responsible party was notified 4/3/24(three days…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-10-04 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain food service equipment effecting 31 residents, resulting in the increased likelihood for cross-contamination, bacterial harborage, and decreased warewashing sanitization. Findings include: On 10/02/23 at 10:17 A.M., An initial tour of the food service was conducted with Director of Food Service (Registered Dietician) I. The following items were noted: The Walk-In Freezer was observed with ice [NAME] protruding from the ceiling and side wall surfaces. Director of Food Service (RD) I indicated she would contact maintenance for necessary repairs. The cafeteria microwave oven interior surfaces were observed soiled with accumulated and encrusted food residue. The 2017 FDA Model Food Code section 4-601.11 states: (A) EQUIPMENT FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES and UTENSILS shall be clean to sight and touch. (B) The FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of cooking EQUIPMENT and pans shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other…
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 · D2023-10-04 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) document was signed by the physician for one (Resident #12) of three reviewed for Advance Directives, resulting in the potential for code status wishes not being followed in an emergency situation. Findings include: Review of the medical record reflected Resident #12 (R12) admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease, diabetes and heart failure. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/3/23, reflected R12 scored 12 out of 15 (moderate cognitive impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-a cognitive screening tool). R12's electronic medical record (EMR) reflected a DNR Physician Order, with a revision date of 3/1/21. Review of R12's DNR form reflected it was signed by a resident representative and two witnesses on 3/5/21. There was no physician signature on 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.
- 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. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-10-31 for 1 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAILEY, GREGORY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/1996 |
| BLYTHE, KIMBERLY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2015 |
| CONNOR, CRAIG | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2008 |
| DOW, SHEA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| GOSSAGE, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2010 |
| HENTHORNE, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2009 |
| HORTON, KARLYE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 12/13/2018 |
| MOORE, RICHARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2011 |
| PHILIPP, DIANE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2009 |
| SMITH, SUSAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 02/25/2021 |
| GROSS, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/02/2018 |
| HODSHIRE, JEREMIAH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/01/2020 |
| CHAUDHRY, NAUMAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/30/2026 |
| MASARIK, TRICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2010 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 26 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.
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 235567. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-22, 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.