620 North Second Street, Carson City, MI 48811 (opens Google Maps) · Montcalm County · (989) 584-6100· 82 certified beds · avg 75 residents/day · certified since Dec 7, 2007 · 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★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · 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): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: May 31, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, pattern · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: May 31, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: May 31, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 27 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
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 24, 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 |
| Jun 24, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · F-0686 |
| Jun 24, 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 |
| Jun 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 15, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0627 |
| Apr 25, 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 |
| Apr 25, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0550 |
| Apr 25, 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 |
| Apr 25, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 25, 2025 | B · Potential for 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 |
| Jul 2, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| May 2, 2024 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| May 2, 2024 | ▲ H · Actual 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 |
| May 2, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| May 2, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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 · F-0658 |
| May 2, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · F-0727 |
| May 2, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0558 |
| May 2, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| May 2, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 2, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0695 |
| May 2, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility employed staff who were not licensed, certified, or registered as required by state law. · F-0839 |
| May 2, 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 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| May 2, 2024 | 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 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0881 |
| Nov 1, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Nov 1, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0712 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 4).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 15 | 3 | K ▲ |
| 2025 | 5 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 5 | 0 | D |
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 →
1 fine totaling $121,908, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2024 | Fine | $121,908 |
| May 2, 2024 | Payment Denial | 13 days from Jun 5, 2024 |
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) | 3.99 | 4.32 | 3.95 | bottom 43% in Michigan; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.25 | 0.84 | 0.69 | top 13% in Michigan; top 8% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.58 | 3.79 | 3.50 | bottom 49% in Michigan; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.71 | 0.49 | 0.48 | top 17% in Michigan; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 42.5 | 44.1 | 45.8 | top 43% in Michigan; top 43% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 22.2 | 39.2 | 42.9 | top 18% in Michigan; top 17% 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 3.59, RN 1.13, weekend 3.22.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.59 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for The Laurels of Carson City. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laurel Acquisition Holding Corporation | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Laurel Health Care Holdings, INC. | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Mohammad a Qazi Living Trust Dated 09/26/97 | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Ciena Healthcare Management INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2021 |
| Ciena Healthcare Management INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Estep, Billiejo | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2024 |
| Estep, Billiejo | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2024 |
| Khan, Anis | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | 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 |
| Mohammad a Qazi Living Trust Dated 09/26/97 | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Qazi, Mohammad | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Smith, Garrett | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Smith, Garrett | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Stobb, David | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2021 |
| The Laurels of Carson City Real Estate, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
All 19 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
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.
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.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Laurels of Fulton | 7.7 mi | Perrinton, MI | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Michigan Masonic Home | 16.9 mi | Alma, MI | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Optalis Health & Rehabilitation of Ionia | 16.9 mi | Ionia, MI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Ashley Healthcare Center | 18.5 mi | Ashley, MI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Riverside Healthcare Center | 18.9 mi | St. Louis, MI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Schnepp Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center | 19.8 mi | St. Louis, MI | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Montcalm, MI — 3 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 235636.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details