MichiganSt. Louis

Schnepp Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center

427 East Washington, St. Louis, MI 48880 · Gratiot County · 97 certified beds · avg 93 residents/day · certified since Sep 28, 1978

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

Part of chain: NEXCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS (20 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)

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)
2
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.48
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 13, 2025 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Aug 22, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 14, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Feb 20, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (17)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Aug 13, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Aug 13, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Aug 13, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Aug 13, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Jun 5, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jun 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint
Jun 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jun 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jun 26, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jun 26, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jun 26, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Jun 26, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Jun 26, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 14, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 14, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 2).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202481G ▲
202591G ▲

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.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityMichigan avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.484.323.95top 30% in Michigan; top 24% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.970.840.69top 29% in Michigan; top 17% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.143.793.50top 23% in Michigan; top 19% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.510.490.48top 36% in Michigan; top 32% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)34.244.145.8top 21% in Michigan; top 22% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)15.839.242.9top 10% in Michigan; top 9% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.79, RN 0.82, weekend 3.50. Staffing rating: 5/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Branscum, JamesIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest31%12/01/2013
Robin Eisenberg 2014 Family TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest31%04/01/2014
Wronski, FrankIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest31%04/01/2014
Nexcare Health Systems, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/06/2011
Perry, MichaelIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2015
Post, JenniferIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE03/20/2015
Sangster, ToddIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/04/2013

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Riverside Healthcare Center1.5 miSt. Louis, MI★★★☆☆3/5
Michigan Masonic Home3.5 miAlma, MI★★★★★4/5
The Laurels of Mt. Pleasant15.5 miMt. Pleasant, MI★★★★★4/5
Isabella County Medical Care Facility15.6 miMt. Pleasant, MI★★★★★5/5
Medilodge of Mt. Pleasant16.3 miMt. Pleasant, MI★★★☆☆3/5
Ashley Healthcare Center16.8 miAshley, MI★☆☆☆☆2/5
The Laurels of Fulton18.2 miPerrinton, MI★★★☆☆2/5
The Laurels of Carson City19.8 miCarson City, MI★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in St. Louis →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 235384.