3650 Van Buren, Hudsonville, MI 49426 · Ottawa County · (616) 669-1520
108 certified beds, about 92 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1978
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 235327 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 7, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Michigan average is 9.9, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since July 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $31,005 in the last three years; the largest was $31,005, and the latest is dated June 2, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.00 hours per resident per day, against 3.99 across Michigan and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.71 of those hours.
44.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Michigan average 44.1%).
CMS links it to Ciena Healthcare/Laurel Health Care, an affiliated group of 81 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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intakes: 2794208, 3001098, 3005108 and 2711826 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to 1.provide care and services to ensure abnormal laboratory values were addressed, 2. Implement resident directed care for CHF (congestive heart failure) and bacteremia sepsis (blood infection), 3. Recognize, assess, and address the resident's condition, 4. Monitor, evaluate, and revise responses to interventions as appropriate, 5. Provide appropriate physician oversight, and 6. Honor the advance directives for two (R1 and R13) of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care, resulting in the unexpected death of a resident (R31) and medication not being provided as ordered (R1).
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intakes 2794208 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all nursing staff and nursing aides received competency training upon hire/annually. This deficient practice affects all 86 residents who reside in the facility. Findings Include: Review of 6 employee files that included 3 nurses and 3 certified nursing assistants (CNAs), revealed none of the six had skills checks completed upon hire and/or annual skills checks. Of the employee files reviewed, only one nurse was still employed at the time of this review. In an interview on 5/28/26 at 8:54 AM, the Human Resource Manager (HR) Q verified that the 6 employee files reviewed did not contain completed competency skills checks. [...]
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake 2794208. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor a resident's DNR (do not resuscitate) wishes for one (R13) of 3 residents reviewed for advance directives, resulting in CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) attempt after found unresponsive.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake number 3021098Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to formulate a safe discharge plan for 1 Resident (R12) of 3 Residents reviewed for discharge.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intakes 3021098 and 2794208. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered care plan for two (R13 and R12) of 3 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intakes 2794208. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate antibiotic was implemented for one (R13) of one resident reviewed for antibiotics.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency for one of four residents (Resident #1) reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently implement ordered preventative skin measures, accurately and thoroughly assess a facility acquired pressure ulcer, create and initiate new care plan interventions based on the resident's current condition, and monitor and perform weekly skin assessments for one (Resident #13) of three residents sampled for pressure injuries, resulting in an infected left hand requiring emergency room intervention and surgery.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the policy and procedures and implement measures to prevent a fall for one (R10) of 4 residents reviewed for falls, resulting in a fall with a major injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician ordered parameters for one resident (Resident #3) out of five reviewed for professional standards.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders to obtain labs and monitor values for coumadin use, reapproach or find a root cause to a resident refusal of labs, document pertinent information, and notify the physician/guardian for 1 (R10) of 3 residents reviewed for coumadin use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow standards of practice for narcotic reconciliation for three residents (Resident #21, Resident #34, Resident #51) out of 5 reviewed for pharmacy services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement and revise care plan interventions for 1 (Resident #88) of 5 Residents reviewed for care plans, resulting in the resident feeling scared and the increased potential for falls during self-transfers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for 2 of 19 sampled residents (R5 and R25).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for antibiotic stewardship, ensure the appropriate antibiotic was ordered and the duration of antibiotic orders was followed, promptly follow up with urinalysis, assess, monitor and document antibiotic use to ensure its efficacy, and no care plan interventions for diagnoses for 1 (R92) of 5 residents reviewed for antibiotic stewardship.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake # MI00149246 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional guidelines for three residents (Resident #4, Resident #5, and Resident #9) out of 4 residents reviewed for tube feeding.
Inspectors wroteThis citation is related to intake # MI00151285 Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer medications according to professional standards for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake MI00147718 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the development and worsening of pressure injuries for one resident (Resident #1) out of 4 residents reviewed for pressure injury, resulting in worsening of pressure injury, serious infection, and delayed wound healing.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake MI00147718 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for one resident (Resident #1) out of 4 residents reviewed for infection control.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake M100147026 and M100146967. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide daily medications for 1 (R2) of 3 residents reviewed for medication administration, resulting in the resident not receiving medications three times a week when they have dialysis in the mornings.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake M100147026 and M100147319. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate measures were taken to maintain the patency of a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastric/Jejunum (PEG/PEG/J) tube (a tube that enters the stomach/jejunum through the abdominal wall) and flushes administered as ordered, for 1 (R2), of 3 residents reviewed for PEG/J tube care, resulting in multiple PEG/J tube clogging incidents, several visits to the Emergency Department (ED), not following post hospital care instructions to ensure patency, and have a system in place to provide the continuity of care.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake M100147026 and M100147319. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate competencies and skill sets were provided to care for one (R2) of 3 residents reviewed for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastric/Jejunum (PEG/PEGJ) (a tube that enters the stomach/jejunum through the abdominal wall) tube care, resulting in repeated clogged tubes and several hospital trips.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to 1) have an appropriate infection surveillance program for tracking and trending infections. This deficient practice can affect all 89 residents in the facility. And 2) provide appropriate hand hygiene during a wound assessment for 1 (Resident #5) of 2 residents reviewed for skin conditions
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to designate a legal surrogate for the purpose of healthcare decision-making for one (Resident #82) of 2 residents reviewed for advance directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the responsible party for one cognitively impaired resident (R38) of five residents reviewed for antipsychotic medication had been informed of the risks and benefits of an antipsychotic medication and consented to its administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to update a care plan for an active skin condition for 1 resident (Resident #5), of 22 residents reviewed for accuracy of care plans, resulting in the potential for staff to provide care that is inconsistent with the needs of the resident.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake M100144434. This citation has 2 Deficient Practice Statements (DPS). DPS A Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess, monitor, document, and notify physician of changes in condition, and follow physician orders for 1 (Resident #82) of 1 resident reviewed for quality of care, resulting in R82 admitted to the hospital.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess and monitor one Resident (R38) of two residents reviewed for nutrition that experienced a significant weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure verification of feeding tube placement prior to medication administration according to professional standards of practice and facility policy for one resident (Resident #72), of 2 residents reviewed for care of feeding tubes, resulting in the potential for aspiration pneumonia and the potential for residents to not meet their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify a significant weight loss for one Resident (Resident #38 (R38) of two residents reviewed for nutrition and failed to ensure the Resident was evaluated for this weight loss by the Medical Provider.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to address pharmacy recommendations for two Residents (R38) and (R59) of four residents reviewed for medications. R38 Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) admission Record revealed R38 originally admitted to the facility 10/5/23 with pertinent diagnoses that included dementia, dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing), and bipolar disorder. Review of the EMR reflected Pharmacy Medication Reviews with recommendations had been conducted in January and July of 2024. The EMR did not reflect these recommendations had been reviewed by the Physician. On 8/14/24 at 1:44 PM a records request was submitted to the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) for the Pharmacy Review recommendations for R38 for January and July of 2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for 1 resident (Resident #5) of 22 residents reviewed for accuracy of medical records, resulting in the potential for miscommunication and an unclear picture of the resident's health care status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the kitchen and the equipment were being maintained free of dust, dirt, food residues and other contaminates, and that the equipment was maintained in proper working order, resulting in the potential to affect all residents that receive food and beverages from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to timely and thoroughly investigate an injury of unknown origin for one resident, Resident #14 (R14) reviewed for injuries. This deficient practice resulted in R14 sustaining a second degree burn to the hand that was not reported nor investigated timely with the potential for repeated injuries to occur.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a dietary care plan for 1 (Resident #69), resulting in the potential for confusion for a resident with dysphagia to not have the appropriate care needed for meals.
Inspectors wroteThis citation pertains to intake M100136178 & MI00132675 Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess, monitor, treat and coordinate care for 2 (Resident #69, Resident #87), resulting in the lack of coordination in treatment for altered skin integrity for R69 and skin breakdown for R87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement best infection control practices after providing care for 1 (Resident #69), resulting in the potential for spreading infection.
6 fire safety citations on file: 2 on August 14, 2024, 2 on July 14, 2023, 2 on May 19, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 2, 2026 | Payment Denial | 27 days from July 1, 2026 |
| August 7, 2025 | Fine | $31,005 |
| August 7, 2025 | Payment Denial | 15 days from September 4, 2025 |
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) | 3.00 | 3.99 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.71 | 0.78 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.77 | 3.50 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.86 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.43 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.4% | 44.1% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 47.1% | 39.2% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.29 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 3.09 on weekdays and 2.77 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.42 in April to June 2025 to 3.00 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 | 3.00 | 0.71 | 3.09 | 2.77 | 0.2% | 0 of 90 | 92 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.23 | 0.74 | 3.38 | 2.85 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.23 | 0.82 | 3.42 | 2.74 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.42 | 0.79 | 3.62 | 2.91 | 0.1% | 0 of 91 | 88 |
| 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.
| 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 | 8.6 | 10.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 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 | 8.5 | 12.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 5.1 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.6 | 14.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.2 | 24.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.9 | 11.7 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Laurels of Hudsonville's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.4% 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. 32 eligible stays.
10.9% 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. 44 eligible stays.
6.7% 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. 26 eligible stays.
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: 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. 9 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: 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. 11 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: 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. 11 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. 8 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: LAUREL HEALTH CARE COMPANY OF HUDSONVILLE. CMS links this home to Ciena Healthcare/Laurel Health Care, a group of 81 nursing homes averaging 2.8 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qazi, Mohammad | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2016 | |
| Khan, Anis | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2016 | |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2016 | |
| Stobb, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2016 | |
| Ciena Healthcare Management Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2021 | |
| Castillo, Michelle | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2019 | |
| Di Rezze, Justin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Khan, Anis | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2016 | |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2016 | |
| Ciena Healthcare Management Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2025 | |
| Hudsonville Senior Leasing, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2021 | |
| Castillo, Michelle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2019 | |
| Di Rezze, Justin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Khan, Anis | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2016 | |
| Stobb, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/01/2016 |
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.