How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
2532 Cadillac Drive, Farwell, MI 48622 (opens Google Maps) · Clare County · (989) 588-9928· 71 certified beds · avg 64 residents/day · certified since Nov 2, 1987 · 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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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 16 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Apr 8, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Mar 6, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2025 | 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 |
| Oct 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to share a room with their spouse or a roommate of their choosing, or moved residents to a different room without written notice beforehand. · from a complaint · F-0559 |
| Oct 1, 2024 | 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 27, 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 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645 |
| Mar 27, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 7 | 0 | F |
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) | 4.47 | 4.32 | 3.95 | top 31% in Michigan; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.69 | top 45% in Michigan; top 26% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.11 | 3.79 | 3.50 | top 24% in Michigan; top 20% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.42 | 0.49 | 0.48 | bottom 48% in Michigan; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 58.5 | 44.1 | 45.8 | bottom 12% in Michigan; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 39.2 | 42.9 | top 38% in Michigan; top 33% 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 4.08, RN 0.75, weekend 3.76.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.08 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for North Woods 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 - Limited Liability company
| 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, Amy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 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 |
| Baumgarten, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Baumgarten, Therese | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| NWNC Estates, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
| Painter, Dawn | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2023 |
| Painter, Dawn | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2023 |
| Peplinski, Sheli | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2012 |
Showing 20 of 40 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 20 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medilodge of Clare | 7.7 mi | Clare, MI | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Medilodge of Mt. Pleasant | 18.7 mi | Mt. Pleasant, MI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Isabella County Medical Care Facility | 19.2 mi | Mt. Pleasant, MI | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| The Laurels of Mt. Pleasant | 19.2 mi | Mt. Pleasant, MI | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 235464.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details