Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of C, meaning it is average and falls in the middle of the pack for nursing homes. It ranks #132 out of 422 facilities in Michigan, placing it in the top half of all state options, and #7 out of 30 in Macomb County, indicating there are only six facilities nearby that are rated higher. The facility shows improvement, with a reduction in issues from nine in 2024 to just two in 2025. Staffing is a mixed bag; the center has a rating of 3 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 42%, which is slightly below the state average, but it has concerning RN coverage that is less than 79% of other Michigan facilities. While there are some serious concerns, such as a resident developing a pressure ulcer leading to hospitalization and another resident not receiving adequate mobility assistance, the overall health inspection rating is good at 4 out of 5 stars.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Michigan
- #132/422
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 42% turnover. Near Michigan's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $34,034 in fines. Higher than 70% of Michigan facilities. Some 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
- 26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (42%)
6 points below Michigan average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Michigan avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
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 26 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 revise the care plan for one resident (R05) of one re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate facial hair grooming for one (R65) of five residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care. Fin...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
9 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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the dignity of one (R101) of six residents reviewed for dignity. Findings include:
Review of the facility record for...
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R108
On 08/06/24 at 9:23 AM, 10:17 AM, 10:40 AM, 12:20 PM, 08/06/24 at 12:21 PM, and 2:59 PM, R108 was observed lying in bed. R1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise the care plan for one (R101) of six residents reviewed. Findings include:
Review of the facility record for R101 revea...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
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 PEG (Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 secure on oxygen tank for one (R108) of one resident ...
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 F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to safely secure medications for two (R6 and R29) of two...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R6
On 08/06/24 at 9:21 AM, R9 was observed sitting on the side of their bed. R9's call light was observed hanging on the wall be...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
10 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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, the facility failed to consistently implement interventions to maintain or i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call light accessibility for one resident (R29) reviewed for accommodation of needs resulting in the potential for unm...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
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 that assistive communication devices were provi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure timely vital signs were documented prior to dialysis and documented post dialysis in the clinical record for one resident (R121) of t...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to Intake MI00137906.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have ordered medicatio...
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 accurately document medication administration in the medical record...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 6/26/23 at 8:30 AM, during initial tour of the A wing, a strong urine smell was observed. Upon entry into the room of R29 and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure incontinence care was provided timely for four ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to receive private and confidential packages, resulting in the loss of personal privacy and independence that c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
1 deficiency
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 F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation refers to Intake MI00134126.
Based on observation, interview and record the facility failed to ensure pain medicat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation refers to Intake number MI00132714.
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident ...
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation refers to MI00132714.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure notification of a change...
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** This citation pertains to Intake: MI00129911 and MI00132575.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduc...
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 F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
This citation pertains to Intake number M100130014.
Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to adequately revise R911's care plan for fall prevention interventions resulting in poten...
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
- • 42% turnover. Below Michigan's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 26 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $34,034 in fines. Higher than 94% of Michigan facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade C (55/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center 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 Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 23 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center?
Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center 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 NEXCARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 134 certified beds and approximately 125 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Clinton Township, Michigan.
How Does Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center?
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 Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center 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 Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center has a staff turnover rate of 42%, 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 Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center has been fined $34,034 across 1 penalty action. The Michigan average is $33,419. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Lakepointe Senior Care And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Lakepointe Senior Care and Rehabilitation Center 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.