How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
600 Denmark Street, Baldwin, MI 49304 (opens Google Maps) · Lake County · (231) 745-4648· 79 certified beds · avg 62 residents/day · certified since Dec 11, 1990 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: THE PEPLINSKI GROUP (10 facilities, chain avg rating 2.1★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Showing the latest 3 of 23 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. F-0658
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. F-0686
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. F-0755
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| May 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| May 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| May 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign. · F-0847 |
| May 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Jan 29, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jan 29, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care. · F-0710 |
| Mar 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Nov 20, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Oct 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| May 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Mar 20, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Mar 20, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Mar 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 5).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 7 | 0 | E |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Michigan avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.65 | 4.32 | 3.95 | top 24% in Michigan; top 19% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.56 | 0.84 | 0.69 | bottom 25% in Michigan; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.08 | 3.79 | 3.50 | top 26% in Michigan; top 21% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.28 | 0.49 | 0.48 | bottom 24% in Michigan; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 56.0 | 44.1 | 45.8 | bottom 17% in Michigan; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 46.2 | 39.2 | 42.9 | bottom 36% in Michigan; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 4.04, RN 0.49, weekend 3.55.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.04 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Grand Oaks Nursing Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ackerman, Amy | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Ackerman, Ricky | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Baumgarten, Michael | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Baumgarten, Therese | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Peplinski, Sheli | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Peplinski, Todd | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Schade, Jeffery | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Schade, Tamara | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Thompson, Brian | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Thompson, Shelly | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 01/01/2012 |
| Ackerman, Ricky | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Ackerman, Ricky | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Ackerman, Ricky | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Holbrook, Gayle | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/04/2021 |
| Holbrook, Gayle | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/04/2021 |
| Peplinski, Todd | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Peplinski, Todd | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Plante & Moran PLLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Plante & Moran PLLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/10/2025 |
| Schade, Jeffery | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
Showing 20 of 32 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 12 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Peplinski Group — 10 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 9 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corewell Health Reed City Hospital Rehabilitation | 16.5 mi | Reed City, MI | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 235499.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details