240 E North St., Hastings, MI 49058 · Barry County · (269) 945-9564
98 certified beds, about 88 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 1976
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 235281 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 5, 2026, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Michigan average is 9.9, the national average 9.2).
Of 47 health citations since March 2024, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $35,416 in the last three years; the largest was $19,532, and the latest is dated September 18, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.35 hours per resident per day, against 3.99 across Michigan and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.50 of those hours.
53.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Michigan average 44.1%).
CMS links it to Avon Healthcare, an affiliated group of 9 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 47 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide food at a palatable temperature for 1 of 1 resident (R33), resulting in the potential for decreased food consumption for all residents who receive food from the kitchen and nutritional decline. Findings Include: Resident #33 During an interview on 5/3/2026 at 10:08 AM, Resident #33 reported ongoing concerns with cold food. Resident #33 reported she felt that the food was a bit warmer when served in the dining room, but when she ate meals in her room, the food was always cold. Resident #33 reported she had spoken with multiple facility staff members on numerous occasions about her concerns with food, but they were still serving cold food often. In a follow up interview on 5/4/2026 at 1:11 PM, Resident #33 was sitting in her chair in the dining room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain best practices in the food service area resulting in the potential to spread food borne illness to all residents that consume food from the kitchen. Findings Include:On 5/4/26 at starting at 8:05 AM, a follow-up tour of the kitchen with Dietary Director (DD) W occurred. On 5/4/26 at 8:26 AM, observation of the shelf above the hand sink found a spray bottle with a yellow solution that didn't have a common name for labeling. According to the 2022 FDA Food Code section 7-102.11 Common Name. Working containers used for storing POISONOUS OR TOXIC MATERIALS such as cleaners and SANITIZERS taken from bulk supplies shall be clearly and individually identified with the common name of the material. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure updated and accurate advanced directive information was in place for 2 (Resident #10 and Resident #5) of 18 residents reviewed for advanced directives (legal documents that allow a person to identify decisions about end-of-life care ahead of time), resulting in the potential for a resident's preferences for medical care to not be followed by the facility, or other healthcare providers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from sexual abuse by a resident for 1 (Resident #67) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse resulting in Resident #67 being inappropriately touched by Resident #43.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that written bed hold notice was provided to 1 (Resident #95) of 3 residents reviewed for transfer and discharge from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise a comprehensive, individualized plan of care after a resident-to-resident abuse incident for 1 (Resident #43) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans, resulting in the potential for unmet care needs and impaired physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement pressure ulcer prevention interventions, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #42) of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcer prevention, resulting in the potential for the development of an avoidable pressure ulcer.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for fall prevention for 1 (Resident #58) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents, resulting in the potential for falls and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement person-centered dementia care interventions based on lifelong habits and personality for 2 (Resident #63 and Resident #18) of 7 residents reviewed for dementia care, resulting in Resident #63 experiencing agitation and avoidable stress and Resident #18 breeching other residents' personal space, being yelled at and at risk for aggressive responses from others.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate and complete medical records for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #5) reviewed for complete and accurate medical record documentation, resulting in the potential for staff and providers mismanaging care for residents.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake #2674240Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from resident-to-resident physical abuse for 2 (Resident #103 and Resident #104) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse resulting in Resident #104 grabbing Resident #103 by the arm, and Resident #103 slapping Resident #104 in the face.
Inspectors wroteR61 According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], R61 was cognitively intact as evidenced by her BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score of 14/15. During an observation and interview on 3/31/25 at 12:15 PM, R61 was awake in bed with her head-of-bed (HOB) at the window. The windowsill track was littered with dead bugs, dust, and debris. The tile sill was cracked and chipped with a large chunk of it missing. The veneer around the bed head board was pulled away from the wood leaving an area large enough to put a hand through. R61 stated, I keep my house neat, tidy, and clean. I would never have my house like this. I have a handyman that helps me at home to keep things fixed. I'm glad I'm going home tomorrow. During an observation and interview on 4/1/25 at 8:00 AM, the window curtain at R61's HOB had a stain the size of a saucer cup at eye level of the resident. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain professional standards of nursing practice and notify the provider of missed medication doses, 2 of 19 residents (Resident #6 and Resident #338) reviewed for professional standards, resulting in missed medications and treatments, and the potential for the worsening of a condition and a delay in treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure facial hair grooming was offered and/or provided and/or clean hair was maintained for 4 (Residents #12, 14, 17, 53) of 6 residents reviewed that were dependent on staff for activities of daily living resulting in unwanted facial hair, debris in hair, appearing unkempt, and the potential for feeling embarrassed or having decreased self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to consistently provide residents with their food and beverage preferences for 12 residents (Residents #17, 53, 65, 2, 64, 85, 12, 14, 76, 22, 24, and 338) out of a facility census of 88 resulting in incorrect items provided, decreased satisfaction, and the potential for frustration, weight loss, and/or dehydration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were cared for with dignity and respect for 1 (Resident #54) of 2 residents reviewed for dignity, resulting in the potential for feelings of embarrassment, frustration, depression, and loss of self-worth and an overall deterioration of psychological well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an updated and accurate advanced directive information was in place for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #338) reviewed for advanced directives (legal documents that allow a person to identify decisions about end-of-life care ahead of time), resulting in the potential for a resident's preferences for medical care to not be followed by the facility, or other healthcare providers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party of a change in resident condition in 1 of 2 residents (R7) reviewed for notification of changes, resulting in the guardian/emergency contact not being made aware of an injury of unknown origin (R7) causing the inability to participate in timely medical decision-making.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake MI00150533 Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the misappropriation of resident narcotic medications in 1 of 1 residents (Resident #64) reviewed for misappropriation of property, resulting in loss of resident's pain medication, and the potential for uncontrolled pain and discomfort.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to operationalize its abuse policy and procedure for 1 resident (R7) of 2 residents reviewed for potential sexual abuse, resulting in staff not reporting observations of abuse to the Nursing Home Administrator immediately, potential for further resident to resident observations of abuse to go unreported and uninvestigated.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to update and revise the person centered care plan in a timely manner with appropriate interventions for the prevention of falls for 1 resident (#43) from a total sample of 19 residents, with the potential for physical, mental, and psychosocial unmet care needs and harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to prevent, treat, and promote healing of pressure ulcers in 1 of 1 residents (Resident #288) reviewed pressure ulcers, resulting in the potential for delayed healing of pressure ulcers, infection and the development of new ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safety precautions and use of assistive devices for 1 (Resident #33) of 4 residents which have the potential to negatively affect the residents highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure emergency physician services were utilized by facility staff for one resident (R7) of 19 reviewed for emergency physician care needs, resulting in not receiving prompt physician emergency services and the increased potential for complications to a serious health condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent in 2 of 11 residents (Resident #338 and #6) reviewed for medication administration, resulting in a medication error rate 12% and the potential for adverse effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly label, date, and store medications in 1 out of 1 medication carts resulting in the potential for decreased efficacy of medications and the exacerbation of medical conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to effectively implement infection control measures that included: 1.) effective implementation of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 2 residents (R7 and R338) 19 residents reviewed for infection control, resulting in the potential for cross contamination of infection to a vulnerable population.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intakes: MI00146150, MI00146185, MI00146924 This citation has 2 deficient practice statements. DPS #1: Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the safety and prevent elopement for 3 (Resident#100, Resident #101, Resident #105) of 5 residents reviewed for elopement, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy when Resident #100 and Resident #101 left the premises alone, unbeknownst to staff, for an extended period, and were later found in the community and the likelihood for serious harm and/or injury for Resident #105.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intakes MI00146152, MI00146926 Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents right to be free from resident to resident abuse for 4 (Resident #102, Resident #103, Resident #107 and Resident #108) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse, resulting in Resident #102 physically assaulting Resident #103, and Resident #107 grabbing Resident #108 in a sexual manner.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake # MI00146924. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper post-fall care and assessment for 1 (Resident #106) of 3 residents reviewed for falls, resulting in the potential for serious injury.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake #MI00143822. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use a sit-to-stand lift (a medical device used to assist individuals in transitioning from a seated to a standing position), as recommended by therapy and per care plan, during a transfer from the resident's bed to wheelchair in 1 (Resident #100) of 3 residents reviewed for safety, resulting in the resident sustaining a laceration requiring sutures.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately notify the resident's physician of a change in condition in 1 of 4 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for physician notification, resulting in lack of assessment and physician involvement following two unwitnessed falls, with known head trauma.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake #'s MI00144035 and MI00144038. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from resident to resident physical abuse in 2 of 4 residents (Resident #105 and #104) reviewed for abuse, resulting in Resident #104 being physically abuse by Resident #105 twice in an 8 day period.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to recognize and report an injury of unknown origin for 1 resident (Resident #103) of 4 residents, reviewed for reporting, resulting in the lack of reporting and the potential for a delay in the investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate documentation of post fall assessments for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for complete and accurate medical documentation, resulting in the potential for insufficient follow up and lack of necessary interventions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement facility fall protocols and utilize gait-transfer belts/implement interventions before and after falls and provide adequate supervision for 2 residents (Resident #65 & #64) of 3 reviewed for falls/supervision resulting in a fall with a fracture needing surgical repair for Resident #65 and the potential for accidents and injuries to residents at risk for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to employ either a full time Registered Dietitian or Certified Dietary Manager to provide oversight of kitchen and clinical nutritional services. This deficient practice has the increased potential to result in food service sanitation failures, food borne illness, or inadequate assessment of high-risk residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: 1. Clean food and non-food contact surfaces to sight and touch; 2. Ensure proper cooling of potentially hazardous foods; 3. Ensure proper working order of the dish machine; 4. Provide accurate sanitizer test strips; 5. Maintain equipment in good repair; 6. Ensure general cleaning of the kitchen; 7. Properly wash hands and protect food from contamination; and 8. Properly date mark and discard food product. These conditions resulted in an increased risk of contaminated foods and an increased risk of food borne illness that affected 83 residents who consume food from the kitchen. Findings Include: 1. During a tour of the kitchen, at 9:14 AM on 3/25/24, observation of the top gaskets on unit #4 and unit #2 were observed with an accumulation of debris. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement an effective infection control surveillance plan, ensure cleaning of shared equipment between residents, maintain resident equipment in clean condition, store resident care supplies in a manner to prevent the spread of infection, and prevent cross-connections for plumbing fixtures, with the potential to affect all 83 residents who reside at the facility, resulting in the potential for the spread of infection without timely identification and response, disease exposure, cross-contamination, and the development and spread of infection to a vulnerable population.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice for medication administration and post-fall assessments in 6 of 11 residents (Resident #135, #56, #77, #24, #78, & #65) reviewed for medication administration, and 1 of 3 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for falls, resulting in medications left unattended at the bedside, medications being pre-set for administration with the potential for medication errors and adverse effects, ordered medications not being delivered and administered, and neurological checks not being completed after an unwitnessed fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to meet resident needs in 2 of 5 residents (Resident #59 & #45) reviewed for sufficient staffing, with the potential for all residents to be affected, resulting in missed showers/baths, a lack of supervision of residents at risk for falls and elopement, and long call light wait times. For additional information see citations F677 and F689.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints for staff convenience in 1 (Resident #60) of 3 residents reviewed for restraint use, resulting in potential for injury, and/or psychological harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for reporting an allegation for potential abuse for 1 (Resident #64) of 18 residents reviewed for reporting, resulting in the potential for continued unidentified, unreported neglect to occur.
Inspectors wroteBased on obsevation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation into an alleged staff to resident abuse (restraint with gait belt to a wheelchair) for 1 (Resident #64) of 18 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect, resulting in an incomplete and thorough investigation and the potential for abuse to continue.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement person centered comprehensive care plans for 1 (Resident #33) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans, resulting in missed assessments and monitoring for potential side effects related to use of psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide routine showers to dependent residents for 2 or 4 residents (Resident #45 and #59) reviewed for activities of daily living, resulting in residents feeling dirty and the potential for residents to not meet their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to appropriately maintain, store and label respiratory treatment supplies for 3 residents (Resident #8, #76 & #13) reviewed for respiratory care, resulting in the potential for respiratory infections and the exacerbation of respiratory conditions cross-contamination of respiratory equipment, and growth of infectious microorganisms.
21 fire safety citations on file: 9 on May 5, 2026, 7 on April 2, 2025, 5 on March 26, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 18, 2024 | Fine | $19,532 |
| June 25, 2024 | Fine | $15,884 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Michigan | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.35 | 3.99 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.50 | 0.78 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.96 | 3.50 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.10 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.75 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 53.8% | 44.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 75.0% | 39.2% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.20 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.51 on weekdays and 2.96 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 5.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.20 in April to June 2025 to 3.35 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.35 | 0.50 | 3.51 | 2.96 | 5.9% | 0 of 90 | 88 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.34 | 0.42 | 3.54 | 2.83 | 9.6% | 0 of 92 | 83 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.09 | 0.32 | 3.23 | 2.74 | 10.3% | 1 of 92 | 88 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.20 | 0.37 | 3.35 | 2.83 | 8.0% | 0 of 91 | 84 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Michigan, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.95 | 0.70 | 4.14 | 3.45 | 3.3% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Michigan, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $19.03 | $18.35 to $21.59 | 43,290 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $31.47 | $29.83 to $35.52 | 10,880 |
| Registered nurses | $45.34 | $39.46 to $49.74 | 104,950 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Michigan | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.6 | 10.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.0 | 12.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 5.1 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.5 | 14.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.8 | 24.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.3 | 11.7 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Clearstream Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (37.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
37.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Michigan: 89 better, 22 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 50 eligible stays.
11.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Michigan: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 60 eligible stays.
7.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Michigan: 1 better, 1 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 33 eligible stays.
55.6% this home
Median of homes: Michigan57.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 36 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Michigan0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 57 residents counted.
2.6% this home
Median of homes: Michigan1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 57 residents counted.
95.7% this home
Median of homes: Michigan99.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 23 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: HASTINGS MI SNF MANAGEMENT LLC. CMS links this home to Avon Healthcare, a group of 9 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Renewal Healthcare LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 05/10/2022 | |
| Gottlieb, Moshe | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 45% | 05/10/2022 |
| Koenig, Joshua | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 05/10/2022 | |
| Freund, Eliyahu | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/10/2022 | |
| Freund, Eliyahu | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/10/2022 | |
| Renewal Mi Managment | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/10/2022 | |
| Melder, Patrick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Wingler, Carter | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/09/2025 | |
| Gottlieb, Moshe | Limited partnership interest | Individual | 05/10/2022 | |
| Renewal Mi Managment | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/10/2022 | |
| Freund, Eliyahu | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/10/2022 | |
| Koenig, Joshua | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/10/2022 | |
| Melder, Patrick | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/15/2025 | |
| Wingler, Carter | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/09/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Michigan. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.