WellBridge of Romeo
375 South Main Street, Romeo, MI 48065 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 124 certified beds · (586) 589-3800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
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 (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 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 | 10.7% | 10.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 5.4% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.8% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 1.5% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 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 | 0.9% | 3.0% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.7% | 12.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.0% | 19.4% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 5.1% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.5% | 20.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.3% | 14.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.6% | 79.5% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.4% | 24.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.6% | 11.7% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.31 | 1.84 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.45 | 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.
62.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 266 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.9% 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 138 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 0.57 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 87% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 | 62.2%CMS range 53.5–68.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 8.4–13.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 65.9% | 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 | 65.2% | 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 | 55.8% | 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 | 90.5% | 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 | 99.2% | 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 | 1.1% | 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 | 5.9%CMS range 3.7–9.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.91 | 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 124 beds and averages 119.4 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.87 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.73 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 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 3.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.99 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-12-17 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide access to past survey results, affecting 117 residents residing in the facility.Findings include: On 12/15/25 at 9:45 AM, during a tour of the facility, a table was noted with a sign on it saying, previous state survey results book can be found at this location. At 2:00 pm and 3:30 PM there was no book observed on the table. On 12/16/25 at 9:00 AM, 12:00 PM and 3:00 PM, there was no book observed on the table. On 12/17/25 at 9:00 am and 10:00 AM, there was no survey book available on table. On 12/17/25 at 10:05 AM, R9 was observed sitting up in wheelchair watching television. R9 was asked about the survey book and where it was located. R9 could not recall seeing a survey book or knowing where it was located. A review of the medical record revealed R9 admitted into the facility on 7/22/2025 with the following medical diagnoses, Infection of Amputation Stump and Congestive Heart Failure. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-17 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to apply heel boots per physician's order for one resident (R61) out of two reviewed for skin conditions. Findings include:On 12/17/2025 at 9:11 AM, R61 was observed in bed with socks on their feet and their heels resting on the bed.A review of the medical record revealed R61 admitted into the facility on 6/8/2024 with the following medical diagnoses, Encephalopathy and Pain in Right Hip. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3/15 indicating an impaired cognition. R61 also required staff assistance with bed mobility and transfers.A review of the physician orders revealed the following, Bilateral heel lift boots on while in bed every shift. Start Date: 7/1/2024. Status: Active.A review of the December (2025) Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed a check (indicating boots applied) on the night shift on 12/16/2025 and day shift on 12/17/2025.On 12/17/2025 at 9:15 AM, an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) B.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-10 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a responsible party (RP)/family member/Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA) was notified when a resident left the facility against medical advice (AMA) for one resident (R111) of one reviewed for notification of changes. Findings include: A record review of R111's electronic medical record revealed the following progress note, 8/13/24 02:53 AM: 8/12/24, around 20:40 (8:40 PM) [R111] stated to writer that [they] [were] leaving [Nursing Home] tonight with [their two friends]. [R111] stated that [they] [were] going to the [Upper Peninsula] and [they] will not be returning to [nursing home]. Conversation had with [R111] encouraging [them] to stay at facility and [they] continued to refuse. [R111] asked plans for transportation, where [they] will be staying once [they] left the facility as well as who is going to provide care for [them] when needed. [R111] stated that [their] friend [had] transportation, provides shelter and her two friends will help…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-10 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure interventions for repositioning were implemented for care of a pressure injury (skin impairment) for one resident (R35) of three reviewed for pressure ulcer care. Findings include: On 10/08/24 at 10:38 AM, R35 was observed to be on their back in bed with the head of the bed elevated around thirty degrees; their lower legs were elevated on a pillow and an active low air loss mattress was in place. On 10/08/24 at 12:07 PM, R35 was observed to be in bed as before, legs elevated, and the head of the bed elevated around thirty degrees. At 12:43 PM, R35 appeared positioned in bed as before. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) D nurse raised the bed a little higher to around 45 degrees and stood next the bed to assist R35 to eat. On 10/08/24 at 1:33 PM, resident observed to be awake, eyes open with the TV on. R35 was observed to be in bed on their back with the head of the bed elevated around 30 to 45 degrees. The legs appeared elevated. R35…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-10 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY This citation pertains to Intake MI00146218. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to document targeted behavior and non-pharmacological intervention attempts and prior to use of a psychotropic medication (ativan/lorazepam) for one resident (R35) of three reviewed for medication use. Findings include: On 10/08/24 at 10:38 AM, R35 was observed to be awake and alert and easily answered yes and no questions and provided detail to answers. At 1:33 PM, R35 was observed to be awake, eyes open with the TV on. R35 reported they were generally not feeling well but was awake and alert. At 4:21 PM and 4:40 PM, R35 was observed to be in bed. At 4:40 PM, R35 had two visitors and was engaged in a conversation. On 10/09/24 at 4:50 PM, R35 appeared asleep on each encounter and did not remain awake or with eyes open after query. On 10/10/24 R35 appeared asleep and did not open their eyes to a knock on the door or a call of their name. At 11:24 PM, the visitor indicated R35 did not awaken to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 Intakes MI00143027, MI00143206, and MI00142945. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect and report an allegation of abuse to the abuse coordinator in a timely manner, for one resident (R902) of three residents reviewed for abuse. Findings include: A review of the Intake revealed, It was alleged the resident was physically and verbally abused by an employee. A review of R902's medical record revealed, R902 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia. A review of R902's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] noted, R902 with an intact cognition and dependent of staff to complete activities of daily living. On [DATE] at 10:50 AM, R902 was observed sitting on the side of the bed. R902's face was observed with bruising around both of their eyes. R902 was asked how their eyes became bruised. R902 explained that they didn't know, but it was not related to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-16 · 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 develop a care plan to address the feeding assistance requirements and interventions for one (R92) of five residents reviewed for plans of care, resulting in the potential for unmet care needs. Findings include: Review of the facility record for R92 revealed an initial admission date of 07/14/22 with the most recent admission being 03/25/23 with diagnoses that included Vascular Dementia, Osteomyelitis of the Ankle/Foot and Diabetes Mellitus. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] (Significant Change in Status Assessment) indicated R92 required partial/moderate assistance for eating. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 0/15 indicated severe cognitive impairment. On 08/14/23 at 9:21 AM, R92 was observed receiving assistance for eating breakfast. They required consistent cueing for alertness and appeared to be very minimally able to participate. On 08/15/23 at 4:02 PM, R92 was observed sitting up in…
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 · D2023-08-16 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer intravenous (IV) medication per professional standards of nursing practice for one resident (R278) of five reviewed for medications, resulting in the potential for error and/or adverse reactions. Findings include: On 8/14/23 at 10:47 AM, R278 gave this surveyor their name during initial tour screening. R278 was noted to have an intravenous (IV) medication infusing through a PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter) line in their left arm. Closer observation of the label on the medication bag revealed an almost empty bag of Daptomycin (antibiotic) - 1000 milligrams (mg) per 50 milliliters (mL). The full patient name written on the bag did not match the name of R278. (same first name as R278; different last name). The medication was administered through dial-flow tubing. Registered Nurse (RN) A was nearby and was asked to enter the room at this time. RN A confirmed that the name on the IV medication bag did not match R278'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 · D2023-08-16 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance during meals for one sampled resident (R68) of three reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs), resulting in difficulty eating and the potential for discomfort. Findings include: On 8/14/23 at 8:43 AM, R68 was observed in bed sitting in a fowler's position (semi-sitting position at a 45-60 degree angle) with a cushion device underneath their knees. Two call lights were clipped/hanging behind the resident's bed and out of reach. R68 was attempting to eat breakfast and had spilled a cup of fruit onto the table in front of them. R68 struggled to pick up pieces of spilled fruit to try and eat. No staff were present to assist the resident. When queried if they were comfortable, R68 stated, Not in this position, no. R68 was somewhat confused but was oriented to person and place when queried throughout the interview. A review of R68's record revealed that the resident was initially admitted into the facility on 7/7/17 and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-16 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently implement effective fall prevention interventions and adequately supervise one (R125) of three closed record residents reviewed, resulting in multiple falls. Findings include: A review of R125's census information revealed that the resident was originally admitted into the facility on 5/18/23 and transferred to the hospital less than 24 hours later. The resident was then re-admitted on [DATE] and transferred to the hospital on 7/4/23. R125 was again re-admitted on [DATE] and passed away in the facility on 7/22/23. An initial record review revealed that R125 experienced five falls during their admission on the following dates: 5/25/23 (unwitnessed), 6/3/23 (unwitnessed), 6/13/23 (witnessed), 6/20/23 (unwitnessed), and 6/22/23 (witnessed). The resident's diagnoses while in the facility included Traumatic Subdural Hemorrhage With Loss Of Consciousness Of 6 Hours To 24 Hours, Subsequent Encounter, Muscle Weakness, Dementia, Altered 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 · D2023-08-16 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 obtain a physician order for oxygen use and store oxygen equipment in a sanitary manner for one resident (R70) of one reviewed for oxygen use, resulting in the potential for equipment contamination and unmonitored oxygen utilization. Findings include: On 8/14/23 at 11:10 AM, R70 was interviewed and indicated they were drowsy but having some pain. R70 was noted to be receiving hospice services. Nasal cannula oxygen tubing was noted lying on the residents bed and connected to a concentrator at two liters per minute (2L). R70 complained of a scab in their nose that is irritated by the oxygen. R70's CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure machine for sleep apnea) mask was observed hanging over their bedside dresser without a storage barrier. R70 repeated that they were feeling drowsy and indicated they wanted their oxygen applied. A review of R70's record did not reveal a physician's order for oxygen administration. Further review revealed that the resident is cognitively intact and was admitted into the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE WELLBRIDGE GROUP — 8 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 7 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| E2G, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 30% | since 04/22/2008 |
| FRANK M WRONSKI LIVING TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 30% | since 04/22/2008 |
| SENIOR CARE EQUITIES #15 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 30% | since 04/22/2008 |
| PERRY, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2015 |
| JACKSON, SPARKLE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/27/2021 |
| SANGSTER, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2016 |
| NEXCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2016 |
4 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 $2.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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 235704. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-17, 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.