Thornapple Manor
2700 Nashville Rd, Hastings, MI 49058 · Barry County · 161 certified beds · avg 151 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5
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 · Sep 4, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
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: Sep 2, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Dec 7, 2023 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
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: Dec 26, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (21)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Apr 23, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 19, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint |
| Sep 4, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Sep 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint |
| Mar 19, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 19, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 19, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Nov 15, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 2, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Feb 2, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 2, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Feb 2, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 2, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Feb 2, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 2, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. |
| Feb 2, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. |
| Dec 7, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Dec 7, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 11, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 2).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 4 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 5 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 3 | 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.
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)
| Measure | This facility | Michigan avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.67 | 4.32 | 3.95 | top 10% in Michigan; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.05 | 0.84 | 0.69 | top 22% in Michigan; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.65 | 3.79 | 3.50 | top 13% in Michigan; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.44 | 0.49 | 0.48 | top 46% in Michigan; top 41% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.7 | 44.1 | 45.8 | top 36% in Michigan; top 35% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 10.3 | 39.2 | 42.9 | top 5% in Michigan; top 4% 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 4.95, RN 0.92, weekend 4.06. 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Who owns this facility
Government - County
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County of Barry | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | NO DATE PROVIDED |
| Behrendt, June | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2019 |
| Bishop, Elizabeth | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2012 |
| Dehaan, Rebecca | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/02/2022 |
| Johnson, Bradley | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2012 |
| Price, Sarah | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/17/2023 |
| Sabo, Rebekah | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2023 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clearstream Rehabilitation and Nursing Center | 4.1 mi | Hastings, MI | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| The Laurels of Bedford | 18.4 mi | Battle Creek, MI | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Oaks at Battle Creek | 19.1 mi | Battle Creek, MI | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Majestic Care of Battle Creek | 19.2 mi | Battle Creek, MI | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 235009.