2400 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49001 · Kalamazoo County · (269) 381-4290
84 certified beds, about 80 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 235050 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 17, 2026, inspectors cited 23 health deficiencies (the Michigan average is 9.9, the national average 9.2).
Of 61 health citations since November 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $31,186 in the last three years; the largest was $15,593, and the latest is dated March 12, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.76 hours per resident per day, against 3.99 across Michigan and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.82 of those hours.
40.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Michigan average 44.1%).
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 61 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an overall effective pressure ulcer prevention program to prevent the development and worsening of pressure ulcers, implement interventions for pressure injuries and effectively assess and monitor for new or worsening pressure injuries for 7 residents (Resident #41, #53, #61, #45, #7, #18 and #4) of 7 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers, resulting in Resident #41's pressure ulcer on the sacrum (coccyx, tailbone) worsening to a Stage 4, Resident #53's Stage 3 pressure ulcer on the sacrum deteriorated, Resident #61 developed a new facility acquired pressure ulcer, and the potential for skin breakdown or continued skin breakdown for Resident's #45, #7, #4, and #18 and overall decline in health status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to fully implement a policy regarding use and storage of resident foods brought in from outside sources resulting in potentially hazardous foods being held passed their discard date, increasing the risk of contamination and food borne illness among residents who store food in resident refrigerators. Findings Include:On 4/14/26 at 10:06 AM, observation of the East Nourishment room found a plastic bag with containers of leftover dinner and dessert items labeled with a resident's name and dated 4-6-26. Further observation of the unit found an unopened package of yogurt labeled with a resident's name and having best by dates of March 23, 2026. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to: 1) effectively identify quality deficiencies, develop, and implement appropriate action to correct deficiencies; and 2) sustain a system to ensure corrective measures related to resident rights, bowel/bladder incontinence/catheter care, infection control, monthly medication reviews, pressure ulcers, and quality of care as evidenced by repeated deficiencies on the past three surveys. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents that reside in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to effectively implement an effective infection control program to include: 1). ensuring Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (an infection control intervention that uses targeted gown and glove use during high-contact resident care activities to reduce the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) were implemented in 3 residents (Resident #41, #45 & #53), 2). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) employed by the facility received at least 12 hours of annual in-service education, resulting in the potential for inadequate care and unmet needs of residents. This had the potential to affect all residents who reside in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement resident focused care plans based on a comprehensive assessment for 5 (Resident #41, #45, #53, #61, and #10) of 18 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans, resulting in unidentified care needs and the potential for worsening of medical conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to revise care plan interventions for pressure ulcer prevention for 1 (Resident #18) of 18 residents reviewed for care planning, resulting in staff being unaware of current pressure ulcer prevention interventions for the resident, and a potential for the resident to experience worsening of pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake 2642352. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) care was provided for 4 (Resident #1, #57, #16, #26) of 7 residents reviewed for ADL care, resulting in the potential for avoidable negative physical and psychosocial outcomes for resident's dependent on staff for assistance.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake #2616992Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents achieved their highest practicable physical well-being and follow professional standards of practice by: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for 8 of 18 residents (Resident #41, #45, #53, #61, #7, #81, #18 and #4) reviewed for complete and accurate documentation, resulting in the potential for staff and providers mismanaging care for residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the cleanliness of resident shared equipment, resulting in the potential for cross contamination, infections, and bacterial harborage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess and ensure the right to safe self-administration of medication in 1 of 18 residents (Resident #16) reviewed for medication administration, resulting in the potential for unsafe self-administration of medication, medication errors, and medications not being stored in a secure manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an environment that promoted resident dignity in 1 (Resident #29) of 4 residents reviewed for dignity, resulting in the potential of feelings of humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to arrange room furniture in a functional manner, provide adequate power outlets for adaptive equipment and implement low-vision modifications to promote independence for one (Resident #2) of three residents reviewed for accommodation of needs, resulting in feelings of frustration, loss of independence and lack of an individualized environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to allow resident choice regarding personal care in 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for self-determination, resulting in Resident #1 not receiving care (showers/baths) at her preferred time of day.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide and document evidence of prompt resolution of grievances in 2 of 2 residents (Resident #2 & #1) reviewed for resolution of grievances, resulting in the potential to experience frustration, apprehension, helplessness, and a negative psychosocial outcome for the residents impacting their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to 1.) provide adequate supervision and implement appropriate care planned interventions to prevent a fall in 1 resident (Resident #57) reviewed for falls, 2.) ensure safe transfer for 1 resident (Resident #5) and 3.) ensure safe wheelchair transport in 1 resident (Resident #37) of 3 residents reviewed for safety resulting in the potential for residents to sustain a fall and/or injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the necessary care and services were in place for a Foley catheter (tube inserted into bladder to drain urine) for 1 resident (Resident # 41) and failed to provide timely incontinence care for 1 resident (Resident #7), from a sample of 3 residents reviewed for incontinence care, resulting in the potential for trauma due to an unsecure Foley catheter, and skin breakdown and recurrent UTI's (urinary tract infections) due to inadequate incontinence care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician (provider) supervised the medical care of residents and participated in the resident's wound assessments and treatment plans for 1 resident (Resident #53) of 18 residents reviewed for physician supervised care, resulting in the potential for a decline in overall health due to worsening of wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely physician follow up with pharmacy recommendations for 3 residents (Resident #3, Resident #10, and Resident #57) of 5 reviewed for medications resulting in the potential for residents to experience avoidable medication side effects and/or receive unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director fulfilled their responsibility of implementing Medication Regimen Review (MRR) policies/procedures to include coordination of care between the facility and the consulting pharmacist/pharmacy for 3 (Resident #10, #57 and #3) of 5 residents reviewed for medications. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all residents that reside at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the most recent survey results were available to residents, family members, legal representatives, and/or visitors to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure daily staffing information was posted daily.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake #2591271. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a resident's emergency contact regarding emergency incidents including 1) A resident fall, 2) resident injury, 3) An emergency transfer to an acute care hospital for 1 resident (Resident #3) of 4 residents reviewed for falls resulting in Resident #3's emergency contact being unaware of her fall, injury and subsequent transfer to an acute care hospital for evaluation and treatment.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake #2591271 and #2581648. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received the necessary care and services, consistent with professional standards of practice to identify and promote the healing of a pressure ulcer in 1 resident (Resident #6) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers/skin conditions resulting in the potential for worsening and/or reoccurrence of pressure injuries due to not having the appropriate treatment in place to help with wound healing.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake #2591271. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate documentation in resident medical records in 1 resident (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for ADLs (activities of daily living) resulting in not knowing whether the resident received or refused a shower.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake: 2575125 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the abuse policy for reporting and response to allegations of abuse in 1 of 3 residents (Resident #102) reviewed for abuse, resulting in the potential for further allegations of abuse to be unreported.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake: 2575125 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent a resident-to-resident altercation for 2 (Resident #101, Resident #102) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse, resulting in Resident #101 making racial accusations to Resident #102 and Resident #102 hitting Resident #101 in the stomach.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare and store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to result in food borne illness among all residents that consume food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to respond timely to call lights to maintain resident dignity for 5 (Residents #4,#10, #22, #36 and #237) of 7 residents reviewed for dignity, resulting in episodes of incontinence and feelings of frustration and loss of self-worth with the potential for overall deterioration of psychological well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure confidential resident health information was protected and private for 1 of 1 (Residents #71) residents reviewed for privacy and federally regulated HIPAA (Healthcare Insurance Portability and Accountability Act).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written notification to the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of facility-initiated transfers/discharges in November 2024 and December 2024 resulting in the potential for all residents to be discharged without an advocate who can inform them of their options and rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate assessment for 1 (R237) of 1 resident reviewed for quality of care when, resulting in R237 receiving a delay in treatment for abrasions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received proper treatment to maintain vision abilities for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #4), reviewed for vision services, resulting in the inability of the resident to attain or maintain the highest practicable level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide coordination of care and services for a Foley catheter (flexible tube inserted through the urethra and into the bladder to drain urine) according to professional standards of practice for urinary catheters for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for catheter care, resulting in Resident #42 continuing to experience urinary tract infections (UTI) with the potential for complications related to urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician reviewed and responded to the licensed pharmacist's monthly medication regimen review recommendations in a timely manner in 1 of 5 residents (Resident #14) reviewed for unnecessary medications, resulting in the potential for medication interactions and adverse side effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide adaptive dining equipment for 2 (Residents #3 and #4) of 2 residents reviewed for adaptive dining equipment resulting in spills, frustration, decreased independence with eating and drinking, and the potential for weight loss or dehydration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Quality Assessment and Process Improvement (QAPI) meetings had the Medical Director as a mandatory attendee at least quarterly resulting in the potential for the Medical Director to not be notified of quality deficiencies occurring in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: 1.) use appropriate personal protective equipment for enhanced barrier precautions and/or appropriate infection control practices for 2 (Resident #38 and #42) of 3 residents reviewed for high contact care activities and catheter care and 2.) don appropriate personal protective equipment for 1 (Resident #27) of 5 residents reviewed for transmission based precautions, resulting in the potential for spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure COVID-19 consents or declinations were obtained for 1 resident (Resident #71) of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations resulting in residents/family members not being aware of the vaccination and the risks/benefits of having it administered.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake MI00146941. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 1.) Follow enhanced barrier and contact precautions for 2 (Resident #104 and #105) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for infection prevention and control 2.)Provide notification of confirmed Covid-19 infections in the facility and 3.) Wear personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately resulting in the potential for the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that an agreement between themselves (the facility) and the dialysis provider (Name Omitted) was established and maintained, for 4 residents (Resident #61, #28, #20, & #75) of 4 reviewed for dialysis services resulting in the potential for disruption in the continuity of care and/or the interruption of dialysis treatments.
Inspectors wroteResident #335 Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #335 was a male, with pertinent diagnoses which included osteomyelitis of vertebra (bone infection), bacteremia (bacteria in the blood), sepsis (an immune response triggered by an infection), and diabetes. Review of an Order Summary Report for Resident #335 revealed the active physician order .cefTRIAXone Sodium Injection Solution Reconstituted 2 GM (Ceftriaxone Sodium) Use 2 gram intravenously one time a day . with a start date of 5/20/24. No active physician order noted for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). Review of a current Care Plan for Resident #335 revealed the focus .I am on IV (intravenous) Medications for osteomyelitis . revised 5/20/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely care and services to promote dignity and ensure a dignified environment during meal times in 3 of 5 residents (Resident #10, #331, & #6) reviewed for dignity/respect, resulting in long call light wait times with incontinence, meals left in front of a resident without timely assistance provided, and the potential for feelings of diminished self-worth, sadness, and frustration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accommodate a resident's right to make choices that were consistent with their assessment and plan of care for 1 of 20 sampled residents (Resident #61) reviewed for resident choices, resulting in the resident not meeting their highest practicable level of well-being.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake MI00144151 Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide written notice of transfer for 1 (Resident #15) of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization resulting in the potential for the resident and/or the resident's representative to be unaware of the resident's transfer out of the facility, the reason for the resident's transfer out of the facility, and/or the resident's rights.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake MI00144151 Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide written notice of bed hold policy for 1 (Resident #15) of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization resulting in the potential for the resident and/or the resident's representative to be unaware of the facility's bed hold policy, including duration, expense, and return process.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 2 (Residents #41 and #43) of 20 sampled residents reviewed for MDS accuracy, resulting in an inaccurate reflection of the residents' health status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement resident comprehensive care plans for 1 (Resident #6) of 20 residents reviewed for care planning resulting in a lack of service for residents to maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received care in accordance with professional standards of nursing practice for 2 of 20 residents (Resident #6, #61) reviewed for physician orders and documentation, resulting in the potential for the worsening of a condition and a delay in treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the attending physician reviewed and responded to the registered pharmacist's monthly medication regimen review recommendations in a timely fashion for 1 (Resident #41) of 5 residents reviewed for medication regimen review, resulting in the registered pharmacist's recommendations not being addressed timely, and the potential for negative medication side effects or unnecessary medications as a result of the delayed response.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a sanitary environment for 1 of 1 (Resident #6) and personal and shared medical equipment reviewed for sanitary conditions, resulting in the potential for cross-contamination, infections, and bacterial harborage.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake # MI00143491. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to immediately treat a hot liquid burn per professional standards of practice in 1 of 5 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for quality of care, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy when on 2/22/24 Resident #103 spilled a cup of hot liquid on her lap. Facility staff did not immediately apply cool liquid to the site to stop the burn, resulting in additional skin breakdown, prolonged healing, infection requiring IV (intravenous) antibiotics, and ongoing pain.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake # MI00143491. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure catheter tubing was secured to prevent pulling per physician order in 1 of 2 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for indwelling catheter care, resulting in the potential for dislodgement of the catheter tubing, the potential for urethral damage, and pain/discomfort.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake # MI00143491. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement physician orders for pain management during wound care in 1 of 5 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for medication administration, resulting in pain during wound care and the potential for decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake # MI00137543. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopement and ensure a functional alarm system was in place in 1 of 5 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for wandering/elopement, resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy when on [DATE] at approximately 5:50 PM, Resident #103, who was cognitively impaired, exited the facility unbeknownst to facility staff and traveled on foot along a busy four lane road with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour to a store to purchase a beverage. Resident #103 was found by a staff member who was driving in to work between 6:00 PM-6:15 PM. The resident had an alarm bracelet in place, however, it was not functional. The facility had initiated 15-minute checks prior to the elopement. The last observation of Resident #103 was at 5:48 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake # MI00137543. Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a functional alarm system was in place in 1 of 5 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for elopement/supervision, resulting in the potential for elopement.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake # MI00140204. Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide showers per resident preference and plan of care in 1 of 4 residents (Resident #106) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care, resulting in dissatisfaction with care and the potential for poor hygiene, skin breakdown, and infection.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake # MI00137543. Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party of a change in condition in a timely manner in 1 of 5 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for notification of changes, resulting in the responsible party being unaware of an elopement on the date of occurrence, and the potential for the responsible party to not be fully informed and involved in care decisions.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake # MI00137543. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately report an elopement incident (a situation involving possible neglect and a system failure) to the State Survey Agency in 1 of 5 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for elopement/supervision, resulting in the potential for a delayed/incomplete investigation.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to Intake # MI00137543. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate situations involving potential neglect in 1 of 5 residents (Resident #103) reviewed for elopement/supervision, resulting in an incomplete facility investigation and a lack of documentation.
29 fire safety citations on file: 11 on April 17, 2026, 9 on March 12, 2025, 9 on May 23, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 12, 2025 | Payment Denial | 7 days from April 24, 2025 |
| April 17, 2024 | Fine | $15,593 |
| November 20, 2023 | Fine | $15,593 |
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) | 3.76 | 3.99 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.49 | 3.50 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.10 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.84 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 40.7% | 44.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 33.3% | 39.2% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.59 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 3.87 on weekdays and 3.49 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.62 in April to June 2025 to 3.76 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 | 3.76 | 0.82 | 3.87 | 3.49 | 2.8% | 0 of 90 | 80 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.65 | 0.86 | 3.75 | 3.40 | 2.2% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.55 | 0.98 | 3.70 | 3.16 | 1.3% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.62 | 0.86 | 3.77 | 3.26 | 3.0% | 0 of 91 | 83 |
| 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 | 12.4 | 10.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 3.0 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.8 | 12.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 5.1 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.5 | 14.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.9 | 24.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.4 | 11.7 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Harold and Grace Upjohn Community Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (53.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
53.2% 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. 151 eligible stays.
10.4% 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. 149 eligible stays.
7.5% 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. 94 eligible stays.
63.1% 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. 65 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. 83 residents counted.
1.6% 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. 83 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 12 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: HAROLD AND GRACE UPJOHN COMMUNITY CARE CENTER.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heritage Community of Kalamazoo | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/01/1966 |
| Barnes, Amy | Corporate director | Individual | 11/09/2018 | |
| Houston, Jordan | Corporate director | Individual | 09/29/2025 | |
| Houston, Jordan | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/29/2025 | |
| Barnes, Amy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/09/2018 | |
| Easlick Shirely, Gerald | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/24/2025 | |
| Smith, Benjamin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2024 | |
| Houston, Jordan | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 03/19/2026 | |
| Barnes, Amy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/09/2018 | |
| Easlick Shirely, Gerald | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/24/2025 | |
| Smith, Benjamin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2024 |
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.