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 →
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 19, 2026
5
Serious findings on record
most recent May 14, 2026
$15,593
Fines, last 3 years
5.83
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 14, 2026 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jun 12, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 14, 2026 · F-0604 · triggered by a complaint
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Why it matters: Unneeded restraints can cause injuries, muscle loss, and deep emotional distress.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jun 12, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 25, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.
Why it matters: In a cardiac or breathing emergency, failure to start CPR promptly can be the difference between life and death.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Dec 4, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 19, 2023 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Oct 20, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
G · Actual 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 complaintF-0600
G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaintF-0604
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 complaintF-0550
View all 24 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
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 14, 2026
▲ G · Actual 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
May 14, 2026
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint · F-0604
May 14, 2026
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
May 14, 2026
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 14, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Mar 19, 2026
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not make sure that paid feeding assistants — staff hired to help residents eat and drink — had the training they need. · from a complaint · F-0948
Mar 19, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554
Mar 19, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Mar 19, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637
Mar 19, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688
Mar 19, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759
Mar 19, 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
Feb 5, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Sep 22, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583
Jun 25, 2025
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Jun 25, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · from a complaint · F-0605
Aug 1, 2024
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602
Nov 16, 2023
▲ G · Actual harm, isolated
The facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · F-0678
Nov 16, 2023
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
Nov 16, 2023
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
Nov 16, 2023
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
Nov 16, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Nov 16, 2023
B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585
Oct 19, 2023
▲ G · Actual 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
Inspection trend by year
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations:
7
Serious citations (G–L):
2
2024
All citations:
1
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2025
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2026
All citations:
13
Serious citations (G–L):
2
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2023
7
2
G ▲
2024
1
0
D
2025
3
1
G ▲
2026
13
2
G ▲
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.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Nov 16, 2023
Fine
$15,593
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityMichigan averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
5.83
Michigan average:
4.32
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.58
Michigan average:
0.84
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
5.08
Michigan average:
3.79
U.S. average:
3.50
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)
5.83
4.32
3.95
top 9% in Michigan; top 5% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.58
0.84
0.69
bottom 26% in Michigan; bottom 49% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
5.08
3.79
3.50
top 9% in Michigan; top 6% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.28
0.49
0.48
bottom 25% in Michigan; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
50.5
44.1
45.8
bottom 30% in Michigan; bottom 36% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
35.0
39.2
42.9
top 46% in Michigan; top 38% 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 5.33, RN 0.53, weekend 4.65.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.33 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Lenawee Medical Care Facility. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
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.
Before you compare prices
Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 235224.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
The Care File
Visit checklist — Lenawee Medical Care Facility
200 Sand Creek Highway, Adrian, MI 49221 · (517) 263-6794
Health inspection rating 2/5 · CMS overall 3/5 · ▲ FEDERAL ABUSE CITATION FLAG· Fines (3y): $15,593
Most serious findings on record:
▲ May 14, 2026 (F-0600, Actual 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.
▲ May 14, 2026 (F-0604, Actual harm, isolated): The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
▲ Jun 25, 2025 (F-0689, Actual harm, isolated): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
☐ "What is your policy on physical restraints, and what alternatives do you try first?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "Are staff on every shift trained and certified in CPR, and how do they know each resident's resuscitation wishes?"
☐ "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
☐ "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
☐ "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
☐ "Who helps residents eat at mealtimes, and what training have they completed?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
☐ "CMS reports 51% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "The ownership record on file lists 21 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
☐ "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
While you're there, notice:
☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)
Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 235224 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)