The Inn at Freedom Village
145 Columbia Avenue, Holland, MI 49423 · For profit - Corporation · 39 certified beds · (616) 820-7600 Medicare only — no Medicaid
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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 | 5 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 | 4.5% | 10.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.4% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 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 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.0% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.6% | 19.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 5.1% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.1% | 20.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 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 | 21.0% | 24.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.2% | 11.7% | 12.0% | typical |
* 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.
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.
55.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 107 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 58.1% 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 43 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: this home’s payroll records show 0.94 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 96% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 55.6%CMS range 49.1–64.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.9%CMS range 7.3–15.7 | 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 | 58.1% | 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 | 60.5% | 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 | 46.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 2.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.8%CMS range 2.5–10.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.68 | 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 39 beds and averages 26.4 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.77 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.51 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.08 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.03 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.75 to 0.91 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-03 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered and assessments were completed in accordance with physician orders for 3 of 12 residents (Resident #11, #47, and #48), reviewed for nursing professional standards of practice.Findings:Resident #11 (R11)Review of an admission Record revealed R11 was a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: congestive heart failure.Review of R11's Order Summary dated 2/16/26 revealed, cloNIDine HCl Oral Tablet 0.1 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day.HOLD IF SBP (systolic blood pressure [top number]) LESS THAN 110. To be administered at 8:00 AM, 2:00 PM, and 8:00 PM.Review of R11's Blood Pressure Summary revealed:On 2/17/26 R11's Blood Pressure (BP) was assessed at 7:22 AM with a result of 152/77. R11's BP was not assessed again prior to the 2:00 PM clonidine administration.On 2/25/26 R11's BP was assessed at 7:35 AM with a result of 157/75. R11's BP was not assessed…
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 · F2025-01-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the failed to maintain the kitchen/facilities equipment and fixtures in proper working order potentially affecting all residents that receive food from the kitchen. Findings include: The following observations were observed on 01/28/25 from 9:15 AM to 10:25 AM, during the initial tour of the kitchen/facility with Dining Manager (DM) A and Kitchen Supervisor (KS) B. Observation of the paper towel dispenser located above the hand sink (on the wall closest to the hood system) was out of paper towels. Review of the FDA 2017 Food Code Section, 6-301.12 Hand Drying Provision. Reflects the following, Each HANDWASHING SINK or group of adjacent HANDWASHING SINKS shall be provided with: (A.) Individual, disposable towels; . Observation of the inside of the True Refrigerator Unit revealed a build-up of food residue, debris and grime on the sides, bottom, and door seal. Review of the FDA 2017 Food Code Section, 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood-Contact…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-30 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document vital signs before witholding a medication with parameters ordered for 1 resident (Resident #83) out of 12 residents reviewed for professional standards. Findings: Resident #83 (R83) Review of an admission Record indicates R83 admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included hypertensive (high blood pressure) chronic kidney disease, supraventricular tachycardia (an irregular heart rhythm), and nonrheumatic mitral valve insufficiency (a condition affecting blood flow in the heart). Review of the January 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) reflected an order for Midodrine HCl Oral Tablet 5 MG (milligram) Give 2 tablets by mouth two times a day for low blood pressures Hold if SBP (systolic blood pressure) is more than >140 -Start Date- 01/28/2025 0800 (8:00 AM). The document reflected R83 did NOT receive a dose of the prescribed medication on 1/28/25 at 8:00 AM or 5:00 PM as evidenced by a 4 in the dose record which indicates Vital…
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 · D2025-01-30 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement its Hot Liquid Protocol for one resident (Resident #85) at risk for injury from hot liquids, out of 2 residents reviewed for accidents. Findings: Resident #85 (R85) Review of an admission Record reflected R85 admitted to the facility from a hospital for rehabilitation. Review of a Hot Liquid Safety Data Collection dated 1/27/2025 reflected R85 had observed tremors in upper extremities and weakness/paresis in upper extremities which placed R85 at risk for hot liquid injuries. Review of a Care Plan initiated on 1/27/2025 indicated R85 was at risk for hot liquid injury. Interventions identified to prevent hot liquid injuries included Assist resident with hot liquids; (R85) to use cup with lid; (R85) to use splint for wrist stability; (R85) to wear clothing/lap protector; Encourage resident to drink hot liquids while sitting at the table. During an observation on 1/28/2025 at 1:52 PM, R85 was given a cup of coffee by a dietary aide. R85 had removed the lid and was drinking the coffee with a straw while…
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 · F2024-02-21 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to perform a facility-wide assessment to identify and determine the necessary resources to provide competent care for its residents, resulting in inadequate knowledge of the facility population and inadequate resources to care for residents and unmet care needs potentially affecting all 19 residents of the facility. Findings include: During the Entrance Conference interview conducted at the start of the annual recertification survey on 2/20/24 at 9:27 a.m., Information Needed from Facility Within Four Hours of Entrance was reviewed and included a request for the Facility Assessment. The facility assessment was not provided to the survey team prior to the end of the first day of the survey. The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) submitted a facility assessment for review on 2/21/24 at 9:30 AM. The Facility Assessment Tool was dated 2/21/24 and had not been reviewed by the QAPI (Quality Assurance Process Improvement) committee for approval. Any record of a previous Facility Assessment was requested from the staff member E on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-02-21 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to implement an effective and current system of surveillance of staff and resident illnesses to identify possible communicable diseases and infections to prevent the spread of an illness/outbreak, resulting in the potential for an outbreak to go undetected. Findings: On 2/20/24 at 2:35 PM the last 3 months of infection surveillance/tracking for staff and residents was requested. Review of the resident illness tracking revealed a spreadsheet of residents that were prescribed antibiotics. There was a line list for residents that had tested positive for COVID. There was no other illness tracking for residents not prescribed antibiotics but had symptoms of infection (respiratory, integumentary, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, etc.) Review of the documentation received regarding employee illness tracking revealed Call-In Sheets and a line list for employees that had tested positive for COVID. The Call-In Sheets were not all thoroughly completed. During an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-21 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed follow professional standards of nursing practice for medication administration for 1 resident (Resident #226) out of 8 residents reviewed, resulting in a medication error (incorrect dose of medication administered). Findings: Resident #226 (R226) Review of an admission Record revealed R226 was a [AGE] year-old male, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with pertinent diagnoses which included: polyneuropathy (nerve pain). Review of R226's Order Summary revealed: *Gabapentin Oral Capsule 300 MG (Gabapentin) Give 1 capsule by mouth in the morning related to POLYNEUROPATHY (start date 2/10/24). *Gabapentin Oral Tablet 600 MG (Gabapentin) Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime related to POLYNEUROPATHY (start date 2/11/24). Review of R226's Controlled Substances Proof of Use form for the evening gabapentin (600mg) administration revealed that on 2/12/24 the gabapentin was not signed out/administered but was documented as administered in the electronic…
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 · D2024-02-21 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Resident #10 (R10) Review of an admission Record reflected R10 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included a muscle weakness and gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis (GERD). Review of an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] reflected R10 was cognitively intact as evidenced by a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15. During an interview on 2/20/24 at 11:00 AM, R10 reported that she took her meals in her room and the hot food selections were not very warm. R10 also reported that the meat selections were not very tender and she would often order chicken rather than beef or pork because of this. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide food served at a palatable temperature for 3 of 19 residents (Resident #10, #14 and #225) reviewed for dining, resulting in dissatisfaction with the food served and the potential for decreased intake and weight loss. Findings Include: During an interview with Dietary Aide 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 · D2023-08-09 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to treat 1 of 3 residents (R1) with respect and dignity and care for the resident in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, resulting in R1 being treated in a disrespectful and undignified manner that caused embarrassment, fear, and/or emotional distress. Findings include: A review off the facility's Resident Rights policy, revised December 2016, revealed, Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity . Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. The rights include the resident's right to: a. a dignified existence; b. be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity; c. be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of property, and exploitation . e. self-determination . A review of R1's admission Record, dated 8/9/23, revealed R1 was a [AGE] year-old resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. In addition, R1's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-09 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for 1 of 3 residents (R1), resulting in incomplete medical records and inaccurate medical records; the potential for providers not having an accurate and complete picture of the resident's stay at the facility; and for providers not being aware of possible changes to the resident's mental, emotional, and/or physical well-being. Findings include: Clear, accurate, and accessible documentation is an essential element of safe, quality, evidence-based nursing practice . Documentation of nurses' work is critical as well for effective communication with each other and with other disciplines. It is how nurses create a record of their services for use by payors, the legal system, government agencies, accrediting bodies, researchers, and other groups and individuals directly or indirectly involved with health care. It also provides a basis for demonstrating and understanding nursing's contributions both to patient…
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 HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES, INC. — 15 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
The other 14 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.5★, 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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CCRC OPCO VENTURES LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 08/29/2014 |
| CCRC PROPCO - HOLLAND LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2020 |
| HCP MA3 GP HOLDING, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/19/2026 |
| HCP MA3, LP | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| HCP PARTNERS LP | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| HCP S-H 2014 MEMBER LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| HCP VENTURES II PARTNER LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| HCP VENTURES II TRS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/19/2026 |
| HCP/LS 2011 REIT, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| HEALTHPEAK OP LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/10/2023 |
| HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2020 |
| JANUS LIVING OP LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| JANUS LIVING TRS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/19/2026 |
| JANUS LIVING, INC. | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| JANUS MEMBER, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| OCEAN ACQUISITION I LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| STATE STREET CORPORATION | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| VANGUARD GROUP INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/19/2026 |
| CHENG, PATRICK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 01/01/2022 |
| MORSE, BRITTNEY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/02/2025 |
| LIFE CARE SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2020 |
| BOETTCHER, IRIS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| HITCHCOCK, ALEXIS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/04/2026 |
| BLACKROCK INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
| CCRC PROPCO VENTURES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/19/2026 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 44 rows in the source record cover these 25 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.
21 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.
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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in MI
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Michigan Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 235548. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-03, 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.