Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing Center
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing Center in Monroe, Michigan has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good option among nursing homes. It ranks #172 out of 422 facilities in Michigan, placing it in the top half, but it is #7 out of 7 in Monroe County, meaning there are no better local alternatives. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 13 in 2023 to just 4 in 2024. Staffing is a weak point, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, but with a low turnover rate of 26%, which is below the state average, suggesting that staff members are generally stable. While there are no fines on record, which is a positive sign, the facility has faced concerns such as improper food storage practices and failure to maintain cleanliness in food service and communal areas, which could increase the risk of cross-contamination and foodborne illnesses.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Michigan
- #172/422
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below Michigan's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 13 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Michigan. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Low Staff Turnover (26%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (26%)
22 points below Michigan average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
No Significant Concerns Identified
This facility shows no red flags. Among Michigan's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
3 deficiencies
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 include one resident (R8) out of four residents reviewe...
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain food service equipm...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to effectively clean and maintain the physical plant ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure R250 a resident with a known history of PICA (an eating disorder that involves eating or craving nonfood items) from access to an ob...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 obtain orders for a suprapubic catheter (catheter ins...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow the standards of infection control for proper P...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** R5
On 12/11/23 at 11:19 AM, R5 was observed lying in bed with nasal canula tube around the neck with oxygen machine running on 3...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
10 deficiencies
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 that a care plan for a urinary indwelling cathe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 perform adequate catheter care for one resident (R15)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure procedures for the Controlled Medication Shift Change Log were followed on 2 of 5 units., resulting in the potential fo...
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 F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This citation pertains to MI00124750.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an evening snack was c...
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 perform proper hand hygiene and glove use during catheter care for one resident (R15) out of one resident reviewed for cathet...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 provide fresh water at bedside for three residents (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
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 palatability of meatloaf served to four reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 1/10/23 at 9:41 AM, the cover for the radiant heater was observed hanging off the heater exposing the radiant heater piping.
...
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. Ensure food items past the use-by-date were not stored with active food stock; 2. Ensure proper storage, sealing, and dat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper working order of a walk-in freezer and the outlet pipe for an ice machine was protected against contamination f...
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 major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Michigan facilities.
- • 26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below Michigan's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing 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 Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 26%, compared to the Michigan average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing Center during 2023 to 2024. These included: 17 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 131 certified beds and approximately 87 residents (about 66% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Monroe, Michigan.
How Does Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing Center's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (26%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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 below-average staffing rating.
Is Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing 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 Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Stick Around?
Staff at Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing Center tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 26%, the facility is 20 percentage points below the Michigan average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.
Was Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center Ever Fined?
Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing Center 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 Seacrest Rehabilitation And Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Seacrest Rehabilitation and Nursing 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.