The Villa at West Branch
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Villa at West Branch has a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the quality of care provided, placing it in the bottom tier of facilities. It ranks #347 out of 422 in Michigan, meaning it is in the bottom half of all facilities in the state, and #2 out of 2 in Ogemaw County, suggesting it is the least favorable option in the area. Although the trend is improving, with a reduction in issues from 14 to 13 over the past year, the facility has a concerning staffing turnover rate of 58%, which is higher than the state average of 44%. The facility has incurred $294,255 in fines, which is higher than 99% of Michigan facilities, indicating repeated compliance problems. There are serious incidents reported, including a critical finding of resident-to-resident sexual abuse and serious deficiencies in care that resulted in significant harm, such as improper administration of medical treatments leading to severe injuries. While the facility has some strengths, like average RN coverage and excellent quality measures, these serious issues need to be carefully considered by families looking for a safe environment for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Michigan
- #347/422
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $294,255 in fines. Lower than most Michigan facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Michigan. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 47 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Michigan average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
12pts above Michigan avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
10 points above Michigan average of 48%
The Ugly 47 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation pertains to Intake Numbers 2575723 and 2589048. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to opera...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
12 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** Resident #4:
Observation and interview an 04/27/25 at 11:08 AM with Resident #4 stated I got the catheter when I came here to th...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 that advance directive forms were completed by a designated ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement procedures to ensure Activity of Daily Livin...
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** Resident #16:
An interview was completed with Resident #16 in their room on 4/27/25 at 12:16 PM. Resident #16 was in bed, positi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
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 implement and operationalize policies and procedures f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain informed consents for psychotropic medications for one resident (Resident #43) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, intervention and record review, the facility failed to ensure that meal items were provided per the menu and failed to ensure residents were notified of menu changes for all faci...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5% when three medication errors were observed from a total of 25 opportuni...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0847
(Tag F0847)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident Council:
In an interview and record request on 04/28/25 at 09:53 AM with the Activity director L the state surveyor req...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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 store medications, medical supplies, labeling and stor...
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 implement and operationalize procedures to ensure proper sanitization and food handling processes in the kitchen for 57 of 57 ...
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** Resident #4:
Observation and interview an 04/27/25 at 11:08 AM with Resident #4 stated I got the catheter when I came here to th...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
14 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** This Citation pertains to Intake Number MI00144251
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to 1. Complete a bow...
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
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 Pertains to Intake Numbers MI00134226, MI00134335, and MI00136587.
Based on observation, interview and record revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #14:
On 5/06/24, at 10:00 AM, Resident #14 was lying in their bed. There was a fall mat to the left side of the bed. Th...
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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to to change a urinary catheter causing recurrent urinary tract infections (UTI) for one resident (Resident #18), resulting in R...
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure interventions to prevent weight loss for two residents (Resident #18, Resident #50) of 16 residents reviewed for weight...
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 provide proper antibiotic therapy for wound culture organism for on...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #48:
During initial tour on 5/6/2024, Resident #48 was observed with their bed in low position and resting.
On 5/7/202...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate less than 5% when two medication errors were observed for two residents (Resident #7 and Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the facility's Fourth Quarter 2023 third party payroll services submitted the Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) data timely, resultin...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor and justify the administration of an antibiotic for one resident (Resident #36) of two residents reviewed, resulting i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #22:
On [DATE], at 1:14 PM, a record review Resident #22's electronic medical record revealed an admission on [DATE] w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and operationalize policies and procedures to ensure accurate dispensing, administration, and reconciliation of cont...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Deficient Practice Statement Two:
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to administer medicati...
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 date and label food items, ensure cold milk, prevent c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
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 Pertains to Intake MI00138286
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
5 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** This Citation pertains to Intake Number MI00137092.
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to respond timely a...
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 Number MI00137749.
Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to obtain the temp...
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 Intake MI00137092.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the provision 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 F0773
(Tag F0773)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation Pertains to Intake Number MI00137092.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and ...
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 F0907
(Tag F0907)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation pertains to Intake Number MI00137092.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to establish and i...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
12 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed supervise the meal and to check the airway of one unresponsive resident (Resident #114), resulting in Resident #114 being found unresponsive i...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to prevent Urinary Tract Infections (UTI) for two residents (Resident #5, Resident #20), resulting in facility-acquired, recurrent urinary trac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent the development and enlargement of Moisture Associated Skin Damage (MASD) for one resident (Resident #164), resulting ...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 1) Failed to prevent a burn from hot coffee for one resident (Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to post in a prominent location for public viewing the actual hours worked by categories of nursing staff and the resident census...
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 1) Failed to analyze data and decrease Urinary Tract Infections ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to monitor, investigate, and analyze and the antibiotic stewardship program, resulting in the likelihood for the program to ineffective and ant...
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** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary and clean environment in five resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that antipsychotic/psychotropic use consents were obtained for three residents (Resident #5, Resident #13, Resident #51...
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
Record review of the facility pharmacy contracted services policy 'Medication Storage in the Facility', dated 4/2018, revealed medications and biological's are stored safely, securely, and properly, f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
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 ensure adequate staffing to meet residents' needs, inc...
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 1) Failed to ensure that food preparation and kitchen equipment ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation pertains to Intake Numbers MI00132816, MI00133022, and MI00133025 and contains two Deficient Practice Statements (...
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This Citation pertains to Intake Number MI00132816.
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement and ...
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?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 8 harm violation(s), $294,255 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 47 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $294,255 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Michigan. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is The Villa At West Branch's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns The Villa at West Branch 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 The Villa At West Branch Staffed?
CMS rates The Villa at West Branch's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the Michigan average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 81%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Villa At West Branch?
State health inspectors documented 47 deficiencies at The Villa at West Branch during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 8 that caused actual resident harm, and 38 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 The Villa At West Branch?
The Villa at West Branch 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 VILLA HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 70 certified beds and approximately 58 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in West Branch, Michigan.
How Does The Villa At West Branch Compare to Other Michigan Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Michigan, The Villa at West Branch's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Villa At West Branch?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is The Villa At West Branch Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, The Villa at West Branch has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 The Villa At West Branch Stick Around?
Staff turnover at The Villa at West Branch is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Michigan average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 81%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was The Villa At West Branch Ever Fined?
The Villa at West Branch has been fined $294,255 across 3 penalty actions. This is 8.2x the Michigan average of $36,021. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is The Villa At West Branch on Any Federal Watch List?
The Villa at West Branch 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.