Brittany Manor
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Brittany Manor has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #188 out of 422 facilities in Michigan, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 3 in Midland County, indicating that only one local option is better. The facility is improving, with a decrease in reported issues from 10 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is a strength with a 4 out of 5 stars rating and a turnover rate of 43%, which is slightly below the state average, suggesting that staff are familiar with the residents. While there are no fines on record, which is a positive sign, there were serious incidents reported, including a failure to identify a resident's worsening condition in time, resulting in unnecessary pain and a delay in treatment for a fracture. Additionally, another resident experienced a preventable fall due to inadequate supervision, leading to facial injuries that required hospital care. These findings highlight the need for improved monitoring and adherence to care plans, balancing the facility's strengths in staffing and its ongoing improvements with some significant areas of concern.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Michigan
- #188/422
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% 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 48 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Michigan. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below Michigan average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Michigan average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Michigan avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R34
Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) admission Record reflected R34 originally admitted to the facility 2/25/25 and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #41 (R41)
Review of an admission Record reflected R41 originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to 1.) accurately document administration of controlled substances and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain a complete and accurate medical record for 5 residents (R2,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
2 deficiencies
2 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to promptly identify a change in condition and act upon those changes ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 intake # MI00149549
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
10 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
During record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the advanced directives, Do Not Resuscitate documentation was completed with two signatures for one (R#48) of one resident reviewed for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 written notification required for facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
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 the bed hold policy was provided for 2 (Residen...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately coded for one (Resident #3) of 18 residents reviewed for MDS, resu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 assure PASRR assessment was completed timely for one of one reviewe...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #1 (R1)
Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 (R1) was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with di...
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 assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs) for 1 (Resident #38) of 1 resident reviewed for ADLs, resulting in ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide an assessment/intervention for bowel constipat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to administer pain medication in a timely manner for one resident (#77) of one resident reviewed for timely administration of pai...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
During a resident council meeting on 04/04/24 at 10:45 AM, 7 residents were in attendance. Anonymous residents stated they had voiced concerns with the call light wait time to the nursing staff, then ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
1 deficiency
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** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance for 2 Residents (R2 and...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 follow professional standards of nursing practice for...
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.
- • 43% turnover. Below Michigan's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Brittany Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Brittany Manor an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Michigan, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Brittany Manor Staffed?
CMS rates Brittany Manor's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Brittany Manor?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at Brittany Manor during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 15 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Brittany Manor?
Brittany Manor 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 140 certified beds and approximately 88 residents (about 63% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Midland, Michigan.
How Does Brittany Manor Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Brittany Manor's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Brittany Manor?
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 Brittany Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Brittany Manor 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Brittany Manor Stick Around?
Brittany Manor has a staff turnover rate of 43%, 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 Brittany Manor Ever Fined?
Brittany Manor 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 Brittany Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
Brittany Manor 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.