MichiganCarson City

The Laurels of Carson City

620 North Second Street, Carson City, MI 48811 · Montcalm County · 82 certified beds · avg 75 residents/day · certified since Dec 7, 2007

Part of chain: CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE (81 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$121,908
Fines, last 3 years
3.99
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · 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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · May 2, 2024 · F-0686

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 (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: May 31, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, repeated · May 2, 2024 · F-0880 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.

Severity (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.

Corrected: May 31, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · May 2, 2024 · F-0883

The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.

Why it matters: Flu and pneumonia are leading causes of serious illness and death in nursing homes, and vaccines are a key defense.

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: May 31, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (27)

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
Jun 24, 2026D · 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 24, 2026D · 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 24, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jun 24, 2026D · 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.
Apr 15, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint
Apr 25, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Apr 25, 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.
Apr 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Apr 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 25, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jul 2, 2024D · Potential for 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
May 2, 2024▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe 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.
May 2, 2024▲ H · Actual harm, repeatedThe 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
May 2, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
May 2, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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
May 2, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
May 2, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
May 2, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
May 2, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
May 2, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
May 2, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility employed staff who were not licensed, certified, or registered as required by state law.
May 2, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
May 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
May 2, 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.
May 2, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Nov 1, 2023D · Potential for 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
Nov 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 4).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202320D
2024153K ▲
202550F
202650D

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)

1 fine totaling $121,908, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
May 2, 2024Fine$121,908
May 2, 2024Payment Denial13 days from Jun 5, 2024

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)3.994.323.95bottom 43% in Michigan; top 40% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.250.840.69top 13% in Michigan; top 8% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.583.793.50bottom 49% in Michigan; top 38% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.710.490.48top 17% in Michigan; top 15% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)42.544.145.8top 43% in Michigan; top 43% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)22.239.242.9top 18% in Michigan; top 17% 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 3.59, RN 1.13, weekend 3.22. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Laurel Acquisition Holding CorporationOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Laurel Health Care Holdings, INC.OrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Mohammad a Qazi Living Trust Dated 09/26/97OrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Qazi, MohammadIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Ciena Healthcare Management INCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2021
Ciena Healthcare Management INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2025
Estep, BilliejoIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2024
Estep, BilliejoIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2024
Khan, AnisIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Khan, AnisIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Khan, AnisIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Mohammad a Qazi Living Trust Dated 09/26/97OrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Qazi, MohammadIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Qazi, MohammadIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Qazi, MohammadIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016
Smith, GarrettIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Smith, GarrettIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Stobb, DavidIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2021
The Laurels of Carson City Real Estate, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2016

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
The Laurels of Fulton7.7 miPerrinton, MI★★★☆☆2/5
Michigan Masonic Home16.9 miAlma, MI★★★★★4/5
Optalis Health & Rehabilitation of Ionia16.9 miIonia, MI★★★☆☆3/5
Ashley Healthcare Center18.5 miAshley, MI★☆☆☆☆2/5
Riverside Healthcare Center18.9 miSt. Louis, MI★★★☆☆3/5
Schnepp Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center19.8 miSt. Louis, MI★★★★☆2/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Carson City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 235636.