Fountain Bleu Health and Rehabilitation Center
28910 Plymouth Road, Livonia, MI 48150 · For profit - Corporation · 108 certified beds · (734) 425-4814 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- 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
- the CMS record shows $8,985 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-15)
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) | 3 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 | 3 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 | 5.6% | 10.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.7% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 1.5% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.4% | 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 | 0.7% | 3.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.3% | 12.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.1% | 19.4% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 5.1% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.1% | 20.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.9% | 14.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 79.5% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.1% | 24.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.9% | 11.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.18 | 1.84 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.46 | 1.64 | 1.80 | better |
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
53.9% 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 161 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.5% 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 84 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% 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 | 53.9%CMS range 45.9–61.0 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 8.1–14.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 59.5% | 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 | 63.1% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 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 | 2.3% | 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 | 8.6%CMS range 5.5–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 108 beds and averages 97.8 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.69 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.84 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.87 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.62 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-12-03 · 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 This citation pertains to Intake Number: 2626257 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the safety of one sampled resident (R701) of two residents reviewed for falls resulting in hospitalization. Findings include:Review of the R701's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that R701 was admitted to facility on 8/25/25 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction, hypertension and dysphagia. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated R701 required maximum assistance with all activities of living. Further review of R701's care plan indicated that two-person assistance was needed with bed mobility. Review of an Incident/Accident report (IA) was reviewed regarding an incident involving R701 and documented the following, Date of Incident: 9/22/25. Incident description: Resident observed to have fallen out of bed while being assisted by staff Location of Incident: Resident's room.Immediate action taken Resident immediately assessed and assisted…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-08-15 · 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 ensure safety during a transfer for one sampled resident (R26) of six reviewed for accidents, resulting in a laceration to the head and emergency transfer to the hospital. Findings include: R26 On 8/13/24 at 10:06 AM, R26 was asked about the care at the facility. R26 stated, I had a really bad fall, the sling broke. R26 explained they had a fall during a transfer using the sit to stand lift. R26 was asked if they were hurt during that fall. R26 explained, they had a head injury. R26 was asked how many staff were with her to help with the transfer. R26 stated, It may have been one person. They don't want to ask for help Because they say they are short (staff). A review of the incident and accident report noted, Incident Description. Nursing Description: Writer called in the room at approximately 10:45 am. Writer entered room, resident lying flat on [R26's] back on the floor, with Aide (Certified Nursing Assistant), two nurses, 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.
- Actual harm · G2023-07-12 · 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 This citation has two deficient practices. Deficient practice number one: This citation pertains to Intake number MI00135555. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure timely treatments for a skin condition were initiated and documented on for one (R187) of three residents whose care and treatments were reviewed, resulting in a delay in treatment, and worsening of the skin condition prior to treatment initiation. Findings include: Review of an Intake reported concerns with medication and treatments not received timely and the amount of medication supplied for the rash was insufficient to cover all areas. Review of the facility record for R187 revealed R187 was admitted into the facility on [DATE], discharged to the hospital for a blood transfusion on 01/05/23 and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Respiratory Failure, Anemia and Anxiety. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated intact cognition with a 15/15 Brief Interview for Mental…
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 before2025-09-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 date medication when opened in two (400B and 500B) of four medication carts reviewed for medication storage. Findings include:On [DATE] at 10:04 AM, during review of the storage in medication cart 400B with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B, Latanoprost Opthalmic Solution was observed with an open date of [DATE], expired 30 days beyond the opened date. Further review of the storage in medication cart 400B, Fluticasone/ Salmeterol Diskus, and two tubes of Biofreeze Topical Gel, was observed without opened dates.On [DATE] at 10:10 AM, LPN B was queried and revealed the Latanoprost should be discarded, and the other opened medications should have been dated when opened.On [DATE] at 10:15 AM, during review of the storage in medication cart 500B with LPN C, ProSource Plus was observed with an opened date of [DATE], expired 30 days beyond the opened date. Further review observed Milk of Magnesia with an opened date of [DATE], 30 days beyond the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 ensure resident rooms had signage alerting of Enhance Barrier Precaution (EBP-precautions used to reduce the spread of infection for residents with medical devices or wounds) notices for two residents (R30 and R99) reviewed for infection control. Findings include:R30A review of R30's medical record revealed that R30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Esophagitis. A review of R30's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] noted, R30 with an intact cognition and required assistance to complete activities of daily living. R30's MDS noted, the presence of one stage three pressure ulcer (full-thickness skin loss, exposing the fatty tissue beneath) and one venous and arterial ulcer present. A review of the physician order revealed, Cleanse Right posterior lower leg open area with normal Saline, Pat Dry, Apply Xeroform gauze and Cover with ABD pad and Paper tape every day shift every Mon,…
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 before2025-04-15 · 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 This citation pertains to Intake MI00152110. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a fall intervention for one resident (R704) out of one reviewed for falls. Findings include: On 4/15/2025 at 10:24 AM, R704 was observed laying in bed. R704 was noted to have fall mats on the side and was in a low position. R704 stated they had no complaints about the care in the facility and were about to get some sleep because they were up all night. A review of the medical record revealed R704 was admitted into the facility on [DATE] with the following medical diagnoses, Cerebral Infarction and Muscle Weakness. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10/15 indicating an impaired cognition. R704 also required staff assistance with bed mobility and transfers. Further review of the Incident and Accident (I/As) for R704 noted they had falls on the following days within the last six months: 11/1/2024, 11/8/2024,…
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 before2024-08-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement dietary care plan interventions for one residents (R22) out of two reviewed for care plans. Findings include: R22 On 8/13/2024 at 12:41 PM, R22 was observed in their room eating lunch. R22's meal ticket stated, No straws. R22 was observed to have a cup of water dated 8/13/2024 with a straw in it. A review of the medical record revealed that R22 admitted into the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses, Dysphagia and Multiple Sclerosis. A review of the Minimum Data Set assessment revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 9/15 indicating an impaired cognition. R9 also required staff assistance with bed mobility and transfers. Further review of R22's diet order noted the following, Order: Regular diet, Mechanical Soft texture, thin consistency. Directions: No straws for nutrition. Status: Active A review of the nutrition care plan revealed the following intervention, Provide regular diet, mechanical soft…
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 · D2024-08-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 revise an individualized, person-centered care plan for one resident (R8) of two residents reviewed for care plans. Findings include: On 8/14/24 at 11:39 AM, R8 was observed lying in bed asleep on a perimeter mattress without heel protectors. A review of R8's medical record revealed R8 was admitted into the facility on 2/25/2020 with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease, Hypertension, and Muscle Weakness. Further review revealed the resident was significantly cognitively impaired, and required one person assistance for bed mobility. Further review of R8's medical record revealed the following care plan, Actual Pressure Ulcer Formation Related to: Resident was admitted with or has pressure ulcer, with risk for delayed wound healing secondary to progressing comorbidities, Debility and generalized weakness with decreased physical mobility and bowel/ bladder incontinence daily. Resident has pressure ulcer/ wound Left Foot. Update 11/21/22 Resident has history of PVD (peripheral vascular disease). Vascular…
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 · D2024-08-15 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 three residents (R11, R13, R64) of three residents reviewed, call lights were accessible. Findings include: R11 A review of the facility record revealed R11 admitted into the facility on [DATE]. R11's relevant diagnoses include vascular dementia, muscle weakness, diabetes, psychotic disorder, and failure to thrive. A review of the Minimum Data Set assessment revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 00/15 indicating an severely impaired cognition. A review of R11's care plan indicated they required a two-person assist for bed mobility. On 8/13/2024 at 11:50 AM, an observation revealed the call light was hanging, tied to the left bed assist rail, touching the floor. On 8/14/2024 at 10:47 AM, an observation revealed R11's call light was tied to the left bed assist bar, hanging, touching the floor, out of resident reach. Head of bed was elevated to 90 degrees, R11 was awake and conversant. An inquiry of resident to press…
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 before2024-06-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY This citation pertains to Intake: MI00145063. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for two residents (R706 and R708), of four residents reviewed for falls. Findings include: R706 On 6/18/24 at 9:34 AM, R706 was observed lying in bed on a regular mattress, bed low to the floor, with one floor mat on the right side of the bed. R706's face was observed with bruising under both eyes. R706 was asked what happened to cause the bruising. R706 stated, I fell. R706 was asked how they fell and explained they fell out of bed. Further observation noted, R706's call light at the foot of the bed, hanging through the frame of the bed. On 6/18/24 at 11:52 AM, R706 was observed in the same condition as above at 9:34 AM. A review of R706's medical record noted, R706 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral infarction, unsteadiness on feet, repeated falls, and history of falling. A review of R706's care plan noted, Focus: At risk for…
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 before2024-06-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 This citation pertains to Intake MI00145063. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to secure medications on three of three medication carts throughout the facility. Findings include: On 6/18/24 at 9:30 AM, an unlabeled medication cart (#1) was observed unlocked and unattended in a hallway containing resident rooms. An unknown staff member walked by and locked it 9:32 AM. On 6/18/24 at 11:42 AM, an unlabeled medication cart (#2) was observed unlocked and unattended in hallway containing resident rooms 501-509. On 6/18/24 11:45 AM, an unlabeled medication cart (#3) was observed unlocked and unattended outside resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. When an unidentified nurse was asked about the unlocked cart they stated, I know, that's my mistake. A request was made for the facility's medication cart policy. The facility provided the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services form (CMS-20089) titled Medication Storage and Labeling. The form noted, Medications and biologicals in medication…
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 · F2023-07-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident food items were dated, failed to maintain kitchen equipment in a sanitary manner, and failed to ensure proper sanitization of dishware. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents that consume food from the kitchen. Findings include: On 7/10/23 between 8:45 AM-9:30 AM, during an initial tour of the kitchen with Dietary Manager (DM) A, the following items were observed: In the Anna's Place kitchenette, the gasket on the Aladdin reach-in cooler was observed to be heavily soiled with a black substance. DM A stated the gasket would be replaced. Inside the Aladdin reach-in cooler, there was an undated box of pizza, an undated sub sandwich, an undated container of cut fruit, an undated container of hummus, 2 stale, undated peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and a cup of chili dated 4/2023. DM A confirmed the items should have been dated. Review of the facility's policy Safe Storage for Food Provided by Families dated 3/8/21 noted: 3. Each item will be clearly labeled with 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 · E2023-07-12 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure psychotropic medication orders for Ativan (lorazepam) and Xanax (alprazolam) had a 14 day stop date for four residents (R19, R49, R54, R187) of five whose psychotropic medications were reviewed resulting in the potential for unintended use beyond 14 days, unnecessary use and decreased monitoring and assessment. Findings include: R19 R19 was observed up in a wheelchair, to eat in the dining area and sit within the social services offices on and off during the survey. A review for the record for R19 revealed R19 was admitted into the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's, Dementia, Depression, Anxiety and Psychotic Disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented severely impaired cognition with a 3/15 Brief Interview for Mental Status score. Review of the medication orders documented an active order dated 12/13/22 at 5:45 AM for Ativan 0.5 milligrams (mg), Give one tablet by mouth every six hours 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 · E2023-07-12 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
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 upon observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently provide evening snacks for three (R5, R34, R76) of four residents reviewed as well as seven anonymous group residents, resulting in resident dissatisfaction with snack/food service. Findings include: R5 On 07/10/23 at 11:26 AM, R5 reported that they are not offered an evening snack very often. Review of the facility record for R5 revealed an admission date of 07/29/22 with diagnoses that included Multiple Sclerosis, Muscle Atrophy and Wasting and Breast Cancer. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated R5 required total assistance for transfers. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 15/15 indicated intact cognition. On 07/11/23 at 11:12 AM, R5 reported they were not offered a snack the previous evening. On 07/12/23 at 09:10 AM, R5 reported that they had not been offered a snack the previous evening. R34 Review of the facility record for R34 revealed an admission date of 10/06/20…
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 before2023-07-12 · 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 prevent a fall during a transfer (by not properly applying a sling) for one sampled resident (R58) of one resident reviewed for accidents resulting in, the resident falling out of their sling during a transfer and onto the floor. Findings include: On 7/10/23 at 10:46 AM, R58 was observed in bed. They were asked about their stay in the facility, and explained that they had a fall a few months ago during a transfer. R58 explained that they were being transferred from their wheelchair to their bed, and that the sling was not all the way underneath their buttocks. R58 explained that as they were being pulled up, the sling slid from underneath them causing them to fall onto the floor. R58 denied pain, but admits that they hit their head on the side of the bed, and that they had a cut to their lip. Review of R58's medical record revealed that they were admitted into the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include Heart Failure, Kidney…
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 before2023-07-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a medication cart was locked when unattended, expired medications were discarded, and biologicals were dated properly when opened for two of four medications carts and in two of three medication rooms reviewed, resulting in the potential for unauthorized access to items in the medication cart and decreased efficacy of biologicals and medication. Findings include: On 07/11/23 at 8:58 AM, a medication administration observation was conducted with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D. LPN D was in a resident's room and the medication cart was unlocked. A staff member walked by and locked the cart. LPN D returned to the cart and attempted to open the drawer without the key. LPN D was then observed to prepare medications for a resident. When LPN D completed preparation of the resident's medication they left the cart and entered the resident's room. The medication cart was left unlocked. When LPN D returned to the cart, they acknowledged they had left it unlocked. On 07/11/23 at 1:00 PM, a review of the 300 low…
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
$8,985 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,985 — penalty dated 2024-08-15
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to OPTALIS HEALTH & REHABILITATION — 36 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 1.9 | +2.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 35 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DUNN, CHARLES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 50% | since 01/01/2020 |
| PATEL, PINAL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 01/01/2020 |
| SHAH, NAYANA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 01/01/2020 |
| PATEL, RAJAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| SHARON, ROBERT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/13/2024 |
| CASSIDY, BRUCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| CERVI-JONSKI, LAURA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/21/2019 |
| MCFADDIN, MARIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| SHAH, HEMANT | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/03/2025 |
| CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| HEMANT SHAH 2018 IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| METRO MAN IV LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| OPTUM MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS. INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/03/2025 |
| PAAR 108 LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| PINAL R. PATEL 2017 IRREVOCABLE TRUST F/B/O AARNA R. PATEL | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| PINAL R. PATEL 2017 IRREVOCABLE TRUST F/B/O ANSH R. PATEL | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| PINAL R. PATEL 2020 IRREVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST UAD 10-6-2020 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| RAJAN G PATEL 2020 IRR FAM TR UAD 12-3-2020 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| SCHLAUPITZ MADHAVAN | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SNW LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| CONNER, MARIANNE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 27 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
11 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.
This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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
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 235587. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-10, 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.