How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
The Laurels of Bedford
270 N Bedford Road, Battle Creek, MI 49017 (opens Google Maps) · Calhoun County · (269) 968-2296· 123 certified beds · avg 114 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1976 · 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: CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE (81 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 14, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 12, 2026
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.51
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 12, 2026 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 12, 2026 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.
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: Jul 10, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 40 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0686
The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint F-0760
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. · from a complaint F-0880
View all 40 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Jun 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| Jan 28, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Jan 28, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Nov 14, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 14, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Nov 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Nov 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Nov 14, 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 |
| Nov 14, 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 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2025 | 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 12, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · from a complaint · F-0802 |
| Sep 12, 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. · from a complaint · F-0812 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint · F-0804 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Sep 12, 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 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · F-0849 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | 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. · F-0559 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | 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. · F-0610 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · F-0622 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
| Jul 13, 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · F-0745 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0756 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0757 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 8).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 19
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 19 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 4 | 1 | 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMichigan averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.51
Michigan average: 4.32
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.72
Michigan average: 0.84
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.09
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) | 3.51 | 4.32 | 3.95 | bottom 10% in Michigan; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.72 | 0.84 | 0.69 | bottom 46% in Michigan; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.09 | 3.79 | 3.50 | bottom 11% in Michigan; bottom 36% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.35 | 0.49 | 0.48 | bottom 37% in Michigan; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.8 | 44.1 | 45.8 | top 34% in Michigan; top 33% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 38.9 | 39.2 | 42.9 | bottom 48% in Michigan; top 45% 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 3.06, RN 0.63, weekend 2.70.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.06 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for The Laurels of Bedford. 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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bedford Senior Leasing, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Ciena Healthcare Management INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Ciena Healthcare Management INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/28/2025 |
| Ciena Michigan Real Estate Group I, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/21/2025 |
| Khan, Anis | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Khan, Anis | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Khan, Anis | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Mason, Brad | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2019 |
| Mason, Brad | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/18/2019 |
| Mohammad Qazi 2022 Children's Trust Uad 5-4-2022 | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/21/2025 |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Stobb, David | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Stobb, David | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Whitaker, Charles | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Whitaker, Charles | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
All 17 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Ciena Healthcare/Laurel Health Care — 81 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.
- The Laurels of Carson City — Carson City, MI · overall 4/5
- The Laurels of Coldwater — Coldwater, MI · overall 2/5
- The Laurels of Fulton — Perrinton, MI · overall 3/5
- The Laurels of Galesburg — Galesburg, MI · overall 1/5
- The Laurels of Hudsonville — Hudsonville, MI · overall 1/5
- The Laurels of Kent — Lowell, MI · overall 3/5
- The Laurels of Mt. Pleasant — Mt. Pleasant, MI · overall 5/5
- The Laurels of Sandy Creek — Wayland, MI · overall 3/5abuse
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 80 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Michigan midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 39% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 17 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Majestic Care of Battle Creek | 2.4 mi | Battle Creek, MI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Oaks at Battle Creek | 2.6 mi | Battle Creek, MI | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Evergreen Manor Senior Care Center | 2.7 mi | Battle Creek, MI | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Pinnacle Care of Battle Creek | 4.2 mi | Battle Creek, MI | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Calhoun County Medical Care Facility | 6.0 mi | Battle Creek, MI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| The Laurels of Galesburg | 10.8 mi | Galesburg, MI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Marshall Nursing and Rehabilitation Community | 14.7 mi | Marshall, MI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Medilodge of Marshall | 15.5 mi | Marshall, MI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Villa at Borgess Place | 16.1 mi | Kalamazoo, MI | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Plainwell Pines Nursing and Rehabilitation Communi | 16.8 mi | Plainwell, MI | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Harold and Grace Upjohn Community Care Center | 18.3 mi | Kalamazoo, MI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Thornapple Manor | 18.4 mi | Hastings, MI | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 235299.