Regency at Canton
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Regency at Canton has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #326 out of 422 facilities in Michigan places it in the bottom half of state nursing homes, and #49 out of 63 in Wayne County suggests that only a few local options are better. Although the facility shows an improving trend, reducing issues from 8 in 2024 to 6 in 2025, there are still serious staffing concerns, with RN coverage lower than 75% of Michigan facilities. The staffing turnover rate of 38% is relatively good compared to the state average, but troubling incidents have been reported, including a resident who managed to leave the facility unnoticed, raising serious safety alarms. Additionally, fines totaling $69,797 suggest ongoing compliance issues, which could indicate deeper problems within the nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Michigan
- #326/422
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Michigan's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $69,797 in fines. Higher than 90% of Michigan facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Michigan. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Michigan average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Michigan average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Michigan avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
3 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00153910.
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to report an incident of resident elopement for one resident (R401) of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that an incident involving a resident elopement was reported...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide timely nail care for one resident (R17) and s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide podiatry services in a timely manner for one ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to 1. Consistently maintain the kitchen in a clean and sanitary condition; 2. Properly date and label food in the refrigerator; 3...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete an assessment for the self-administration of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of an acute change in condition for one reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to administer a transdermal patch in accordance with the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide audiology services for one of one resident (R6...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were consistently documented per physician...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the dishmachine was in good working order;...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to MI000141717
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent the misappopriation o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to MI00141717.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately perform a narcotic...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to MI00138511.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to fully implement...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to MI00138511.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure than an incident of st...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
4 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intakes MI00134521 and MI00134705.
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a care plan for a communication deficit was cr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to apply a hand protector for one resident (R49) of 6 res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurately and consistently assess weight changes for one resident (R91) of five residents reviewed for nutrition, resulting in the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intake MI00131131
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (R807) of si...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
This citation pertains to intake M131131.
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to properly reconcile Schedule 2 (drugs with high potential for abuse) medications duri...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 38% turnover. Below Michigan's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $69,797 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $69,797 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Michigan. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (11/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Regency At Canton's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Regency at Canton an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Michigan, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Regency At Canton Staffed?
CMS rates Regency at Canton's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Regency At Canton?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at Regency at Canton during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 19 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Regency At Canton?
Regency at Canton is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by CIENA HEALTHCARE/LAUREL HEALTH CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 141 certified beds and approximately 132 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Canton, Michigan.
How Does Regency At Canton Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Regency at Canton's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Regency At Canton?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Regency At Canton Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Regency at Canton has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Michigan. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Regency At Canton Stick Around?
Regency at Canton has a staff turnover rate of 38%, which is about average for Michigan nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Regency At Canton Ever Fined?
Regency at Canton has been fined $69,797 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Michigan average of $33,777. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Regency At Canton on Any Federal Watch List?
Regency at Canton is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.