Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around February 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Bay Shores Senior Care And Rehab Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Residents and family members reported repeated delays in call light response, with some waits lasting 30 minutes to over an hour, and described staff shutting off call lights, leaving residents waiting, and using cell phones while providing care or while in resident rooms. A cognitively intact resident who needed extensive assistance said a CNA would answer a call light and then not return for 25 to 30 minutes, causing embarrassment after an incontinence episode, while another resident’s call light remained unanswered for 29 minutes when the resident needed the restroom. Resident council minutes also documented ongoing complaints about slow responses and staff phone use in resident care areas.
Incomplete psychotropic medication consent information: The facility did not fully inform residents or their representatives about psychotropic/antidepressant meds because consent forms for multiple residents listed only the medication name and indication, without dose, frequency, route, side effects, or black box warnings. One resident with dementia and limited responsiveness had Seroquel and Zoloft discussed with family, but the forms were not signed and the family said they were not told enough about the meds; similar omissions were found for other residents receiving Lexapro, Buspirone, Clonazepam, Oxcarbazepine/Trileptal, Effexor, and Rexulti.
Annual PASARR reviews were not completed for 4 of 8 residents reviewed. The residents had prior Level II PASARR screenings and diagnoses including dementia, depression, bipolar disorder, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, CVA, CAD, CHF, COPD, and other chronic conditions. Social services staff acknowledged the overdue PASARRs and stated the facility did not have a PASARR policy, relying instead on a state PowerPoint for guidance.
A resident with Parkinson’s disease, dementia, and a history of falls was observed in a wheelchair with a pummel cushion positioned incorrectly and appearing uncomfortable while trying to reposition. The cushion had no HCP order, consent, assessment, or clear documentation of indication, and staff and family gave inconsistent explanations, with the DON and therapy unable to identify a documented reason for its use.
A resident’s completed MDS discharge assessment was not transmitted to CMS, even though the 5-day assessment had been submitted. The MDS Nurse stated the wrong assessment was likely submitted and that there was no error report or other way to reconcile assessments that were export ready but not transmitted timely.
A facility failed to administer Tamiflu timely to a resident with Influenza A due to inadequate follow-up with the resident's DPOA. Additionally, a nurse did not use a barrier or properly disinfect a blood glucose machine, leading to potential contamination. The facility's policy lacked clear disinfection procedures.
A resident with Lymphedema and a leg fracture experienced missed wound care treatments due to staffing shortages, leading to non-compliance with physician's orders. The resident expressed frustration over the missed treatments, which were not documented in the progress notes, and reported that their sister had to intervene to ensure care was provided.
The facility inaccurately coded the MDS for a resident, indicating restraint usage when none was present, and failed to document another resident's Influenza A infection on the CMS 802 form. The errors were identified through observations and interviews, revealing discrepancies in the MDS coding process and infection documentation.
A facility failed to timely assess a resident's transfer and mobility needs, leading to unsupervised self-ambulation and an incomplete care plan. The resident, with Alzheimer's and other conditions, was found in a compromised state due to inadequate assistance. Staff interviews revealed confusion about the resident's needs, which were only addressed after the deficiency was noted.
The facility failed to update care plans for three residents, leading to potential missed interventions. A resident had fluids placed out of reach, contrary to care plan interventions. Another resident did not receive a shower for six days, despite care plan requirements. Additionally, a resident's care plan contained contradictory information about trauma history, not reflecting evaluation findings.
A resident did not receive scheduled showers for six days after admission, leading to family complaints. Despite the facility's policy for twice-weekly showers, the resident was not bathed until the family intervened. Staff interviews revealed communication and documentation failures, as refusals were not properly recorded, contributing to the deficiency.
Two residents in an LTC facility experienced pressure ulcer development and worsening due to the facility's failure to implement care plan interventions. One resident's Stage II ulcer progressed to Stage IV, while another developed a Deep Tissue Injury. Despite care plans including repositioning and pressure relief measures, these were not consistently followed, leading to the deterioration of their conditions.
The facility failed to provide adequate feeding assistance and prevent weight loss for two residents. One resident was observed without dining assistance, despite requiring total assistance with meals, and was found with unopened meal items. Another resident experienced significant weight loss without timely re-weighing or intervention, with water placed out of reach and inconsistent weighing methods. The facility did not adhere to its policies on weight monitoring and nutrition risk, leading to deficiencies in care.
The facility failed to properly administer insulin to a resident by not priming the insulin pen needle, contrary to policy. Additionally, another resident received an incorrect dosage of Renvela, as the facility administered 800 mg instead of the prescribed 1600 mg three times daily. These errors were identified through observations, interviews, and record reviews.
A facility failed to ensure safe medication storage when a nurse stored a resident's medications in an unlabeled cup in a medication cart drawer. The medications were not signed out as given, and the nurse stated they were stored because the resident was unavailable. The DON noted that new nurses typically do not perform medication passes, indicating a deviation from the facility's procedures.
The facility failed to obtain informed consent for psychotropic medications for two residents. One resident was prescribed Alprazolam, Lamictal, and Quetiapine Fumarate without consent for the latter two medications. Another resident had their Depakote dosage increased without a clear indication or diagnosis of seizures. The facility did not adhere to its policy on psychotropic medication use, resulting in administration without proper documentation and justification.
Delayed Call Light Response and Staff Cell Phone Use in Resident Care Areas
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were treated in a dignified and respectful manner by not responding to call lights in a timely way and by allowing staff cell phone use in resident care areas. Multiple residents and family members reported long waits for assistance, staff shutting off call lights and not returning, and staff using phones while providing care or while in resident rooms. The report also documents resident council complaints that call lights were answered slowly, staff raised their voices, and staff used their phones in resident care areas. Resident #12, who was cognitively intact and required maximum to total assistance for toileting and bathing, stated that a second-shift CNA would answer a call light and then leave for 25 to 30 minutes before returning. The resident said this made them feel unimportant and guilty for asking for help because staff told them they were short staffed. The resident also reported missing a shower because there were only three CNAs working and described an episode where they soiled themselves because staff did not get to them in time, which made them feel horrible and embarrassed. Resident #138, who was alert to self only and required a mechanical lift and two staff for transfers, had a call light activated for 29 minutes before it was answered while the resident needed to use the restroom. At the same time, another call light had also been on for an extended period. Resident #90’s family member reported call lights could take up to 45 minutes to answer and described a nurse responding with an attitude when asked about another resident’s needs. Other residents reported call lights taking 30 minutes to over an hour, staff shutting off lights and not returning, and aides using cell phones in resident rooms while residents waited for care. The facility’s employee handbook stated personal electronic devices were not allowed in resident care areas, and resident council minutes showed repeated complaints about long call light times and staff phone use.
Incomplete psychotropic medication consent information
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents and/or their responsible parties were fully informed about psychotropic and antidepressant medications because the medication consent documentation did not include the medication dosage, frequency, route, or required warning information. The deficiency involved residents #2, #9, #94, and #138, and the record review showed signed or scanned psychotherapeutic medication information sheets that listed the medication name and indication but omitted key details such as dose per administration, number of doses per day, route, side effects, and black box warnings. For Resident #138, the record showed admission with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy, fall, dementia, and diabetes mellitus, and the resident was alert to self only and required a mechanical lift with two staff for transfers. The resident was receiving Zoloft 50 mg daily for major depressive disorder and Seroquel 25 mg daily for insomnia/restlessness. Family members stated they did not understand why the resident was taking psychotropic medications and did not want the resident to receive them, and they reported the medications had been started in the hospital as short-term treatment for confusion related to infection. The facility’s psychotherapeutic medication information sheets for Seroquel and Zoloft were completed, but they were not physically signed by the resident or the resident representative, and the RN later stated side effects were not reviewed because it was late and the family member was ready to leave. For Resident #2, the MAR showed Lexapro 10 mg by mouth in the morning for major depressive disorder, and the psychotherapeutic medication information sheet dated 1/8/2026 identified Lexapro and major depressive disorder but did not include dosage, frequency, side effects, or black box warnings. For Resident #9, the MAR showed Buspirone 30 mg twice daily, Clonazepam 1 mg twice daily, Oxcarbazepine/Trileptal 600 mg twice daily, and Effexor 150 mg twice daily for psychiatric diagnoses, but the corresponding psychotherapeutic medication information sheets listed only the medication names without dosage, frequency, or black box warnings. For Resident #94, the MAR showed Rexulti/brexpiprazole 2 mg daily for hallucinations related to dementia with agitation, while the medication information sheet listed Rexulti for dementia with agitation but omitted dosage, frequency, route, and black box warnings. The facility policy required psychotherapeutic medication orders and consent information to include the medication name and strength, route, frequency, supporting diagnosis, and targeting behaviors or symptoms.
Annual PASARR Reviews Not Completed for Multiple Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that annual PASARR assessments were completed for 4 of 8 residents reviewed. Record review showed that Residents #2, #46, #113, and #116 each had a Level II PASARR screening dated in January 2025, and the annual PASARR review was due in January 2026. During interview and record review on 03/11/2026, social services staff acknowledged that the annual PASARRs for Residents #2 and #46 were due and had not been completed. Staff also stated that she was auditing charts to get caught back up because the previous social worker did not complete them. Resident #2 had diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's dementia, malnutrition, anxiety, depression, bipolar disease, COPD, anemia, CAD, HTN, diabetes, and CVA. Resident #46 had diagnoses including depression, CAD, heart failure, HTN, peripheral vascular disease, renal insufficiency, diabetes, CVA, and COPD. Resident #113 had diagnoses including non-traumatic brain dysfunction, CAD, heart failure, HTN, peripheral vascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, and aphasia. Resident #116 had diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, HTN, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. The facility also stated that it did not have a PASARR policy and instead used a PowerPoint presentation from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.
Unclear Use of Pummel Cushion Without Order or Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a pummel cushion used on Resident #88’s wheelchair was clearly indicated as a medical treatment device and was supported by a physician order, assessment, reassessment, and documentation of its purpose. Resident #88 had diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease, dementia, heart failure, cervical disc disorder with myelopathy, difficulty walking, and falls. The resident’s MDS described severe cognitive impairment and need for moderate to maximum assistance with ADLs, and the record showed no current or discontinued order for the pummel cushion, no assessment or reassessment for its use, and no documentation explaining why it was in place. On observation, Resident #88 was seated in a high-back wheelchair with the pummel cushion positioned incorrectly, with the front slid down and the wedge partially off the edge of the seat while the back of the cushion was all the way to the rear of the wheelchair seat. The resident appeared uncomfortable and repeatedly tried to reposition unsuccessfully. Family Member J stated the cushion was likely being used because the resident had slid down and fallen, but also reported the resident had had falls in the past and that staff did not always respond promptly to the call light. The family member further stated staff were supposed to assist with transfers with two staff members, but that this did not always happen. Record review showed the care plan included a fall intervention for the pummel cushion, but it did not identify the reason for implementation. Progress notes from March 2025 through the survey date contained no documentation related to the pummel cushion, and there was no documentation of wheelchair positioning concerns such as hip abduction needs or sliding forward due to physical conditions. The resident had several falls between March and July 2025, but none were documented as related to wheelchair positioning, and the most recent fall assessment described the resident bending down to pick up a Kleenex and falling over. Facility staff, including the DON, acknowledged there was no order and no consent for the pummel cushion, and therapy documentation reviewed did not explain the reason for its use or evaluate the resident’s ability to transfer with and without it. An LPN stated the cushion was used to prevent falls but also said the resident had not slid down or fallen out of the wheelchair, and could not explain why it remained in place.
Failure to Transmit Completed MDS Discharge Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to transmit a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #108 within 7 days of assessment. Record review showed that a 10/20/2025 Discharge Return Anticipated MDS was completed but not submitted to CMS, and progress notes indicated the resident did not return to the facility. During interview and record review on 3/11/2026, the MDS Nurse confirmed that the 5-day assessment had been submitted, but the discharge assessment had not been transmitted. The MDS Nurse stated the wrong assessment must have been submitted instead of the discharge assessment and reported there was no error report or other way to reconcile assessments that were export ready but not transmitted timely.
Infection Control and Medication Administration Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide timely antiviral medication for a resident diagnosed with Influenza A. The resident, who had a history of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Vascular Dementia, Diabetes, Hypertension, and Atrial Fibrillation, was not administered Tamiflu despite testing positive for Influenza A. The facility attempted to contact the resident's son, who is the durable power of attorney, to obtain consent for Tamiflu administration. However, only one documented attempt was made, and no further follow-up was conducted, resulting in the resident being outside the efficacy window for Tamiflu. Additionally, the facility did not ensure proper infection control practices. A nurse was observed preparing medications without using a barrier and failed to properly disinfect a blood glucose machine before storing it with other supplies. The facility's policy did not specify the cleaning and disinfection procedures for the blood glucose meters between residents, leading to potential contamination of the medication cart and supplies.
Missed Wound Care Treatments Due to Staffing Issues
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely completion of wound care for a resident, resulting in missed treatments and not following physician's orders. Resident #93, who was readmitted on January 10, 2025, with diagnoses including Lymphedema, a left lower leg fracture, and Obesity, required assistance with all Activities of Daily Living and had intact cognition. The Treatment Administration Record for January 2025 indicated missed wound care treatments on January 21 and January 31, as the boxes were left blank. Similarly, the record for February 2025 showed a missed treatment on February 5. There was no documentation in the progress notes explaining the reasons for these missed treatments. On February 5, 2025, Resident #93 expressed frustration over missed wound care treatments, attributing them to staff shortages. The resident reported that their sister had to call the nurse to address the missed dressing change, and when the nurse arrived, they stated they did not have time to perform the dressing change. This situation highlights the facility's failure to provide care according to the resident's needs and physician's orders, leading to dissatisfaction and voiced complaints from the resident.
Inaccurate MDS Coding and Infection Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately code the MDS for Resident #24, resulting in a misclassification of restraint usage. During an observation, Resident #24 was found resting in bed without any restraints, and both the resident and Nurse O confirmed that no restraints were used. However, the MDS completed by Nurse P offsite incorrectly indicated the use of limb restraints less than daily. This error was identified when MDS Nurse Q reviewed the coding and confirmed the misclassification. Resident #24's clinical records did not support the use of restraints, highlighting a discrepancy in the MDS coding process. Additionally, the facility did not properly reflect Resident #61's infection status on the CMS 802 form. During the initial tour, it was noted that Resident #61 was positive for Influenza A and was under transmission-based precautions. However, the MDS Resident Matrix did not indicate any current infections for Resident #61. The DON confirmed that the resident's positive influenza status should have been documented on the matrix, as the resident had been symptomatic and tested positive for Influenza A prior to the survey. This oversight in documentation led to an inaccurate representation of the resident's health status on the CMS 802 form.
Failure to Timely Assess Resident's Transfer Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a timely assessment of transfer and mobility status for a resident, resulting in unsupervised self-ambulation and an incomplete baseline care plan. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, and glaucoma, was observed in a compromised situation in their bathroom, indicating a lack of proper assistance and supervision. The care plan initially lacked specific details on the level of assistance required for the resident's transfers, which was not addressed until several days after admission. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of clarity and communication regarding the resident's transfer needs. The Rehab Director assumed the resident was signing onto hospice and did not recommend a transfer status, while the Director of Nursing was unaware of the resident's specific needs until alerted. The care plan and Kardex were subsequently updated to reflect the resident's transfer and ambulation requirements, but this was only done after the deficiency was identified.
Failure to Update Care Plans and Address Resident Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to update care plan interventions for three residents, leading to potential missed interventions and unmet needs. For Resident #23, observations revealed that fluids were consistently placed out of reach, despite care plan interventions indicating the need for accessible call lights and encouragement of fluid intake. The CNA's actions of removing the call light and placing fluids out of reach were not documented in the care plan, which lacked any rationale for these actions. Resident #164 experienced a delay in receiving showers, as reported by a family member. The resident was admitted to the facility and did not receive a shower for six days, despite the care plan indicating a need for showers twice a week. The facility's records did not document any refusals by the resident, and the family had to repeatedly request a shower, highlighting a lack of adherence to the care plan and communication with the family. For Resident #24, there was a contradiction in the care plan regarding the resident's trauma history. The care plan contained conflicting information about the resident's trauma assessment, which was not updated to reflect the Level II OBRA evaluation findings. The social worker acknowledged the discrepancy, noting that the care plan should have been updated to incorporate the evaluation information, but it was not due to the resident not sharing those specifics directly with the social worker.
Failure to Provide Scheduled Showers for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care for a resident, resulting in frustration and complaints. The facility's policy, dated 7/1/2008, aimed to assist residents in achieving maximum functional ability with dignity and self-esteem. However, the facility did not adhere to its policy, as evidenced by the lack of showers provided to a resident who had been admitted on 1/31/2025. The resident did not receive a shower until 2/5/2025, despite the facility's schedule indicating showers should occur twice a week. The resident's family member repeatedly requested a shower, highlighting the resident's unmet needs and poor hygiene. Interviews with facility staff revealed a breakdown in communication and documentation. The social work designee was informed of the issue by the family member and notified the unit manager, who assured that the resident would receive a shower. However, the resident was only offered a shower on 2/4/2025, which was refused, and no further attempts were documented. The facility's failure to document refusals and ensure the resident received scheduled showers led to the family member's complaint to the state surveyor. The lack of adherence to the shower schedule and inadequate documentation contributed to the deficiency in care.
Failure to Prevent Pressure Ulcer Development and Worsening
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement and operationalize policies and procedures to prevent the development and worsening of pressure ulcers for two residents. Resident #4's Stage II pressure ulcer progressed to a Stage IV ulcer while at the facility. Despite being cognitively intact and requiring assistance for mobility and hygiene, Resident #4 was not repositioned regularly by staff, as confirmed by the resident and staff interviews. The resident's care plan included interventions such as an air mattress and education on repositioning, but these were not effectively implemented, leading to the deterioration of the pressure ulcer. Resident #217 developed an unstageable Deep Tissue Injury (DTI) on their heel while at the facility. The resident was severely cognitively impaired and dependent on staff for transfers. Despite being at risk for pressure ulcer development, the resident's care plan interventions, such as floating heels and repositioning, were not consistently followed. Observations revealed the resident's heel was often positioned directly against the mattress, and staff were unaware of the pressure ulcer until it had developed. Interviews with facility staff, including the DON, confirmed the lack of consistent implementation of care plan interventions for both residents. The facility's policy on wound management aimed to prevent skin breakdown and promote healing, but the failure to adhere to these guidelines resulted in the development and worsening of pressure ulcers for the residents. The DON acknowledged the deficiencies in care and the need for appropriate interventions to prevent further deterioration.
Failure to Provide Feeding Assistance and Prevent Weight Loss
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate feeding assistance and prevent weight loss for two residents, leading to deficiencies in their care. Resident #43 was observed without dining assistance at her bedside, despite her care plan indicating she required total assistance with meals. During an observation, she was found alone with her lunch tray, which included unopened items, indicating she was not receiving the necessary help to consume her meal. The facility's staff, including the Administrator and Culinary Specialist, acknowledged that the resident should have been assisted with her meal, as per her meal ticket instructions. Resident #23 experienced significant weight loss, losing 10 pounds within a short period, without timely re-weighing or intervention. Observations revealed that water was consistently placed out of reach, and a CNA expressed concern about the resident drinking too fast, which could lead to choking. Despite the resident's care plan indicating the need for encouragement of fluid intake and offering snacks/drinks, these interventions were not effectively implemented. The resident's weight log showed inconsistent weighing methods, contributing to the lack of timely response to the weight loss. The facility's policies on weight monitoring and nutrition risk were not adequately followed, as evidenced by the lack of re-weighing and intervention for Resident #23's weight loss. The Registered Dietitian confirmed the inconsistency in weighing methods and the absence of a re-weight after the initial 10-pound loss. These deficiencies highlight the facility's failure to adhere to its own policies and provide necessary nutritional support to residents at risk.
Medication Administration Errors in Insulin and Renvela Dosage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper insulin administration for Resident #57, as observed on February 6, 2025. Nurse H prepared the insulin pen without priming the needle with the required 2 units of insulin before administering the dose into the resident's abdomen. This action was against the facility's Medication Administration Subcutaneous Insulin policy, which mandates performing a safety test to ensure accurate dosing and proper functioning of the pen and needle. The Director of Nursing was informed of this deviation from protocol. Additionally, the facility did not provide the correct medication dosage for Resident #164. The resident was supposed to receive 1600 mg of Renvela (sevelamer carbonate) three times daily, as per hospital discharge instructions. However, the facility ordered and administered only 800 mg three times daily. This discrepancy was noted by the resident's family member and was confirmed through a review of the resident's Medication Administration Record and hospital discharge paperwork. The error was acknowledged by a Registered Nurse, who stated that the family had brought it to their attention, and it was subsequently corrected.
Medication Storage Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure safe medication storage practices, as observed during a medication storage task. A clear plastic unlabeled medication cup filled with numerous medications was found in a medication cart drawer labeled 227-1. This cup contained the morning oral medications for a resident, and the medications were not signed out as given by the nurse responsible for the cart. The nurse explained that the medications were placed in the cup because the resident was unavailable at the time. Further investigation revealed that the nurse's competency for medication administration was questioned, as the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated that new nurses typically do not perform medication passes. The facility's guidelines state that medications should be administered at the time they are prepared when using a mobile cart. This incident highlights a deviation from the facility's medication administration procedures, leading to the deficiency in medication storage and administration practices.
Failure to Obtain Informed Consent for Psychotropic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate indication and informed consent for psychotropic medication administration for two residents. Resident #46 was prescribed multiple psychotropic medications, including Alprazolam, Lamictal, and Quetiapine Fumarate, without obtaining informed consent for Lamictal and Quetiapine Fumarate. The facility's policy required informed consent and education regarding potential side effects, but these were not documented for these medications. Interviews with the RN Clinical Care Coordinator and the Social Worker confirmed the absence of consent forms and medication information sheets for these drugs. Resident #47 experienced an inappropriate increase in Depakote dosage without a clear indication or diagnosis of seizures, which was the reason given for the dosage increase. The resident's medical record indicated diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, Alzheimer's Disease, and Dementia, but not seizures. Despite a recommendation from the Behavioral Care Services to maintain the current medication plan, the dosage was increased based on low lab levels of valproic acid. The Director of Nursing confirmed the increase but could not provide a rationale consistent with the resident's documented conditions. The facility's failure to adhere to its policy on psychotropic medication use and informed consent resulted in the administration of medications without proper documentation and justification. This oversight increased the potential for serious side effects and adverse reactions in the residents involved, as the necessary risk versus benefit analysis and consent process were not completed.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 150 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Bay City
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carriage House Nursing And Rehabilitation | 1.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Hampton Nursing And Rehabilitation | 3.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Caretel Inns Of Tri-cities | 4.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| Bay County Medical Care Facility | 6.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Huron Woods Nursing Center | 7 mi | ★★★★★ | 15 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Bay Shores Senior Care And Rehab Center.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.