Eaton County Medical Care Facility
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Eaton County Medical Care Facility in Charlotte, Michigan has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a good choice-solid but not elite. It ranks #111 out of 422 facilities in Michigan, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among the four facilities in Eaton County. However, the facility is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 5 in 2023 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is a clear strength, boasting a 5/5 star rating with a turnover rate of only 30%, which is much lower than the state average. On the downside, there are significant concerns, including a serious incident where a resident developed severe pressure ulcers due to inadequate monitoring and care, and ongoing issues with food safety practices that could lead to foodborne illnesses. Additionally, there is a lack of a proper plan to manage water safety, which raises concerns about potential respiratory infections among residents.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Michigan
- #111/422
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 30% turnover. Near Michigan's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 64 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Michigan nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (30%)
18 points below Michigan average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
16pts below Michigan avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Dec 2024
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 updated and accurate advanced directive information was in p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 all injuries of unknown source were thoroughly investigated,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 accurately complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessmen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
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 complete adequate monitoring for the use of an anticoagulant (blood...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #42(R42)
Review of the medical record revealed R42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R42 Face Sheet reflected dia...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Resident #97 (R97)
Review of the medical record revealed R97 was admitted to the facility 03/16/2023 with diagnoses that included dementia, heart disease, protein-calorie malnutrition, chronic obstruc...
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 prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice has the potential to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
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 have an active and ongoing plan for reducing the risk...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
This citation includes intake MI00144331.
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to act promptly on grievances and or concern forms reported in and out of resident cou...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
5 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review facility failed to: 1) accurately assess, monitor and prevent the development ...
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
Safe Transfer
(Tag F0626)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to intakes MI00139713 and MI00139715.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to permi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate medication storage for one of three medication carts.
Findings include:
During the initial tour of the fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was worn per standards of practice for one residents (Resident #85) of 8 resi...
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) maintain sanitary food and non-food contact surfaces, 2) store chemicals away from food, 3) maintain equipment, and 4) pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0551
(Tag F0551)
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 1 Resident (R77) had a representative to assist...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain confidential medical records for 1 resident (R60), resulting in the potential for lack of medical record confidentia...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
- • 30% turnover. Below Michigan's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 17 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Eaton County Medical Care Facility's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Eaton County Medical Care Facility an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Michigan, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Eaton County Medical Care Facility Staffed?
CMS rates Eaton County Medical Care Facility's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Eaton County Medical Care Facility?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at Eaton County Medical Care Facility during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 16 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Eaton County Medical Care Facility?
Eaton County Medical Care Facility is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 142 certified beds and approximately 124 residents (about 87% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Charlotte, Michigan.
How Does Eaton County Medical Care Facility Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Eaton County Medical Care Facility's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Eaton County Medical Care Facility?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Eaton County Medical Care Facility Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Eaton County Medical Care Facility has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Michigan. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Eaton County Medical Care Facility Stick Around?
Eaton County Medical Care Facility has a staff turnover rate of 30%, 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 Eaton County Medical Care Facility Ever Fined?
Eaton County Medical Care Facility has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Eaton County Medical Care Facility on Any Federal Watch List?
Eaton County Medical Care Facility 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.