Every person who worked here at any point in the quarter, employees and contractors. It is not how many are on site at once: that is the "on an average day" figure.
156
152 employees · 4 contractors · 56 on an average day Chelsea Retirement Community
Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Continuing Care Retirement Community, Independent Living, Memory Care & Skilled Nursing · Chelsea, MI
CMS overall rating
5/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
5/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
Chelsea Retirement Community
Nursing Home, Assisted Living, Continuing Care Retirement Community, Independent Living, Memory Care & Skilled Nursing · Chelsea, MI
CMS overall rating
5/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
5/5
CMS (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is the federal agency that rates nursing home quality. Its Overall Rating runs from 1 to 5 stars, combining health inspections, staffing, and quality measures, with inspections weighted most heavily.
Chelsea Retirement Community accepts Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay.
Chelsea Retirement Community is a continuing care retirement community in Chelsea, MI, offering independent living, assisted living, memory care, nursing home care, and skilled nursing. Independent living means private living with community services and no daily care, while assisted living includes help with daily tasks such as dressing, bathing, and medication. Memory care provides a secured setting with supervision for someone living with dementia or at risk of wandering. Nursing home care and skilled nursing provide licensed nursing care on site around the clock.
Several care levels are available within one community. For a resident whose needs may grow over time, that can mean staying at Chelsea Retirement Community rather than moving to a different community. Respite care offers a short stay when a usual caregiver needs to travel or recover, while the Post Acute Care program and rehabilitation services support recovery after an illness or injury. Pets are allowed, so a resident can keep a pet as part of daily life.
Housing includes studios, one bedroom residences, two bedroom residences, and cottages. A studio offers one private living space, while a two bedroom residence can suit a couple moving together. The community has 172 beds and opened in 1906.
Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay are accepted, giving families several listed ways to cover care. Medicaid may help someone whose savings will not cover a long stay, while Medicare covers short term skilled care after a hospital stay rather than long term residence. Total nurse staffing is 4 hours and 39 minutes per resident per day, representing the daily nursing time assigned per resident. United Methodist Retirement Communities operates Chelsea Retirement Community.
Quality ratings
The Overall CMS Rating combines results from health inspections, staffing levels and quality measures. Health inspections carry the most weight. Staffing and quality scores can increase or decrease the final rating based on performance compared to state and national standards.
Based on the results of the facility's three most recent standard inspections and any complaint investigations. CMS reviews the number, scope, and severity of deficiencies, with more recent findings weighted more heavily.
Measures average nursing staff hours per resident per day, including Registered Nurses (RNs) and total nursing staff. Ratings are adjusted based on the level of care residents require and are compared to state and national benchmarks.
Based on clinical and physical health indicators reported to CMS, such as hospital readmissions, falls, pressure ulcers, and improvements in mobility. These measures reflect how well residents' health needs are being managed.
Staffing
Data period: Q4 2025 (October 1 – December 31, 2025).
Nursing care per resident per day and state rankings: CMS Provider Information.
Headcount, shifts and contractors: CMS Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ).
Resident count: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (data as of Jun 2026).
Total nursing care per resident / day
This nursing home is ranked 39th out of 127 nursing homes we track in Michigan for nurse hours. Total adjusted nursing hours per resident per day, combining RN, LPN, and aide time. CMS adjusts this for case-mix so facilities can be fairly compared.
4h 39m
This nursing home is ranked 39th out of 127 nursing homes we track in Michigan for nurse hours. Total adjusted nursing hours per resident per day, combining RN, LPN, and aide time. CMS adjusts this for case-mix so facilities can be fairly compared.
4h 39mStandout metric: Physical therapist is +148% above Michigan average
1 of 6 metrics below Michigan average
Daily care time per resident, by role
Registered nurse (RN)
RNs hold the highest nursing license and can assess residents, interpret test results, and direct care plans. More RN hours per day often signals stronger clinical oversight and faster response to health changes. All 14 are the facility's own employees; no agency contractors work in this role.
14 staff · 9-hour shifts
46m
↑ 1% · MI 46mThis facility: 46m per resident per day, 1% above the Michigan average of 46m (among Michigan facilities reporting a recent figure).
RNs hold the highest nursing license and can assess residents, interpret test results, and direct care plans. More RN hours per day often signals stronger clinical oversight and faster response to health changes. All 14 are the facility's own employees; no agency contractors work in this role.
14 staff · 9-hour shiftsUS average: 41m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 41m
LPN / LVN
Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) or Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) deliver routine hands-on care — medication administration, wound dressing, and monitoring vital signs. They work under RN supervision and make up a large share of daily bedside care. All 22 are the facility's own employees; no agency contractors work in this role.
22 staff · 9.7-hour shifts
1h 18m
↑ 47% · MI 53mThis facility: 1h 18m per resident per day, 47% above the Michigan average of 53m (among Michigan facilities reporting a recent figure).
Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) or Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) deliver routine hands-on care — medication administration, wound dressing, and monitoring vital signs. They work under RN supervision and make up a large share of daily bedside care. All 22 are the facility's own employees; no agency contractors work in this role.
22 staff · 9.7-hour shiftsUS average: 52m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 52m
Certified nursing assistant
Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) provide the most direct day-to-day assistance: bathing, dressing, feeding, and mobility. Nurse aide hours are typically the largest staffing category and directly affect residents' quality of life. All 71 are the facility's own employees; no agency contractors work in this role.
71 staff · 9.2-hour shifts
2h 35m
↑ 8% · MI 2h 23mThis facility: 2h 35m per resident per day, 8% above the Michigan average of 2h 23m (among Michigan facilities reporting a recent figure).
Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) provide the most direct day-to-day assistance: bathing, dressing, feeding, and mobility. Nurse aide hours are typically the largest staffing category and directly affect residents' quality of life. All 71 are the facility's own employees; no agency contractors work in this role.
71 staff · 9.2-hour shiftsUS average: 2h 20m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 2h 20m
Physical therapist
Hours per resident per day provided by licensed Physical Therapists (PTs) or PT Assistants. PT services help residents recover mobility after injury or illness and are especially important for post-acute (short-stay) rehabilitation.
10m
↑ 148% · MI 4mThis facility: 10m per resident per day, 148% above the Michigan average of 4m (among Michigan facilities reporting a recent figure).
Hours per resident per day provided by licensed Physical Therapists (PTs) or PT Assistants. PT services help residents recover mobility after injury or illness and are especially important for post-acute (short-stay) rehabilitation.
US average: 4m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 4m
Total nursing, weekends
Combined nursing hours (RN + LPN + Nurse Aide) per resident per day on weekends. Staffing often drops on weekends — this figure reveals whether the facility maintains adequate coverage outside of weekday hours.
RN + LPN + aide · Sat–Sun
4h 5m
↑ 16% · MI 3h 31mThis facility: 4h 5m per resident per day, 16% above the Michigan average of 3h 31m (among Michigan facilities reporting a recent figure).
Combined nursing hours (RN + LPN + Nurse Aide) per resident per day on weekends. Staffing often drops on weekends — this figure reveals whether the facility maintains adequate coverage outside of weekday hours.
RN + LPN + aide · Sat–SunUS average: 3h 26m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 3h 26m
RN, weekends
Registered nurse hours specifically on weekends. Facilities sometimes reduce RN presence on Saturdays and Sundays — a low weekend RN figure compared to weekday hours can indicate reduced clinical oversight when most administrative staff are absent.
Sat–Sun
24m
↓ 17% · MI 29mThis facility: 24m per resident per day, 17% below the Michigan average of 29m (among Michigan facilities reporting a recent figure).
Registered nurse hours specifically on weekends. Facilities sometimes reduce RN presence on Saturdays and Sundays — a low weekend RN figure compared to weekday hours can indicate reduced clinical oversight when most administrative staff are absent.
Sat–SunUS average: 28m.Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse. US 28m
Headcount
Every person who worked here at any point in the quarter, employees and contractors. It is not how many are on site at once: that is the "on an average day" figure.
156
152 employees · 4 contractors · 56 on an average day
156 total staff / 83 residents. Residents: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (data as of Jun 2026); staff: CMS Payroll-Based Journal (Q4 2025).Residents and staff come from two different CMS releases, so the two counts can be a few months apart.
1.88 : 1
↑ 12% · MI 1.67This facility: 1.88 staff per resident, 12% above the Michigan average of 1.67 (among Michigan facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
156 staff ÷ 83 residents
See full Michigan ranking →
Average hours one staff member works on a day they are on shift, across every role.
8.3 h
↑ 5% · MI 7.9 hThis facility: 8.3 h, 5% above the Michigan average of 7.9 h (among Michigan facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
42,709 staff hours this quarter
See full Michigan ranking →99.9% of staff hours were worked by the facility's own employees
Michigan average: 91.4% · Contractors this quarter: Occupational Therapy Assistant (3), Medical Director (1)
Why it matters: employees work here week after week and get to know each resident's routines and needs. Agency contractors often rotate between facilities, so a higher employee share usually means more consistent care.
By The Numbers
Community insights.
Bed count
A mid-sized community that may balance personal attention with shared amenities and social activities.
172
Rank #10 / 131Bed count — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 10th out of 131 nursing homes we track in Michigan for bed count. Shows this facility's certified or reported bed count compared to other Michigan facilities. Larger communities may offer more amenities, programs, and on-site services for residents and families. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
A mid-sized community that may balance personal attention with shared amenities and social activities.
172
Rank #10 / 131Bed count — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 10th out of 131 nursing homes we track in Michigan for bed count. Shows this facility's certified or reported bed count compared to other Michigan facilities. Larger communities may offer more amenities, programs, and on-site services for residents and families. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.Medium-capacity home · Offers a balance of services and community atmosphere.
Walk Score
Car-dependent. Most errands require a car, with limited nearby walkable options.
Rank #135 / 157Walk Score — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 135th out of 157 nursing homes we track in Michigan for walk score. Shows how walkable this facility's neighborhood is compared to the average walk score across Michigan facilities. Higher scores benefit residents, families, and staff. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
Car-dependent. Most errands require a car, with limited nearby walkable options.
Rank #135 / 157Walk Score — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 135th out of 157 nursing homes we track in Michigan for walk score. Shows how walkable this facility's neighborhood is compared to the average walk score across Michigan facilities. Higher scores benefit residents, families, and staff. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
13
/ 100
Residents per day (avg)
The average number of residents living at this facility on a given day. CMS calculates this figure from the facility's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments and uses this value for other measures like Hours Per Resident Per Day (HPRD) and 5-Star Staffing rating.
The average number of residents living at this facility on a given day. CMS calculates this figure from the facility's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments and uses this value for other measures like Hours Per Resident Per Day (HPRD) and 5-Star Staffing rating.
81
Source: CMS Provider Information, average daily residents
Avg. Length of Stay
Average number of days residents stay at this facility, based on CMS cost report data. Shorter stays often reflect post-acute or rehab care; longer stays reflect long-term care.
Average number of days residents stay at this facility, based on CMS cost report data. Shorter stays often reflect post-acute or rehab care; longer stays reflect long-term care.
59
days
About This Community
Facility TypeHomes For The Aged
StatusRegular
IssuanceAugust 1, 2026
ExpirationJuly 31, 2027
CountyWashtenaw
License NumberAH810236762
CMS Certification Number235021
Positive Approach to Care (PAC) Designated Organization - Aware Level — Teepa Snow's Positive Approach to CareStaff trained or certified in Positive Approach to Care, dementia-care techniques developed by occupational therapist Teepa Snow, focused on interpreting behavior as communication and adapting care to remaining abilities.
Chelsea Retirement Community is legally operated by United Methodist Retirement Communities Inc.
Resident Council
Pharmacy Services Including Prescription Delivery
Respite CareRespite care provides families and unpaid caregivers with short-term relief from caregiving duties. Care can range from a few hours to a few weeks.
Catering Services
TransportationListed as: Transportation for scheduled off-campus group activities
MaintenanceListed as: Home maintenance-free living
HousekeepingListed as: Postal services and dry-cleaning pickup
Pets Allowed
Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC)
Library
Media Rooms
Movie Theater
Banking
Beauty Salon
Swimming Pool
Hot Tub
Fitness Center
Chapel
Gift Shop
Fire Pit
Courtyard
Mezzanine Living Room
Sauna
Walking Track
Stretch and Balance Gym
Shuffle Ball Court
Private Dining Room
Activities
Men's Group
Resident Council and Committees
Shopping Trips and Social Outings
Group Fitness Classes
Arts & Crafts
- Clubs and groups (reading, gardening, art, social committees)
Highlights
- Landscaped grounds, walking paths, cutting gardens, and raised garden beds
- Bill's café with free ice cream and coffee, 24 hours-a-day
Religious AffiliationUnited Methodist
Dining & Nutrition
Sourced directly from the team at Chelsea Retirement Community.
Dining & Nutrition
Sourced directly from the team at Chelsea Retirement Community.- Private dining room for family events.
- Bistro / café on site.
- Multiple dining venues.
Building TypeMid-rise
Room Types
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
Private Room
Suite
Cottage / Villa
This profile shows two inspection records, and their totals often differ. Inspection History and the Inspection Scorecard below are state data — the figures the state publishes and the state inspection reports we hold on file — covering the entire facility. CMS Health Inspection History covers only this home's Medicare and Medicaid-certified nursing beds, from federal certification surveys.
Inspection History
In Michigan, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) conducts unannounced inspections and investigations to ensure long-term care facilities comply with state health codes.
Since 2010 · 16 years of data
These figures come from state-published data and the state inspection reports we hold on file. The period covered can vary depending on document availability.
Includes all inspection records for this property, which could include management/ownership changes. 3 deficiencies 6 inspections
Includes all inspection records for this property, which could include management/ownership changes. 3 deficiencies 6 inspections
Inspection Scorecard
This scorecard compares key inspection, deficiency, and complaint metrics at this facility against the Michigan state average. Metrics rated ≥15% worse than average are highlighted in red; those ≥15% better are highlighted in green.
Since 2010 vs. Michigan state average
Overall vs. MI average
0 Worse
No metrics in this bucket.
2 Better
Metrics better than Michigan average:
• Total deficiencies (57% below)
• Deficiencies per inspection (62% below)
• Total deficiencies (57% below)
• Deficiencies per inspection (62% below)
Deficiencies
| This Facility | MI Average | vs. MI Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Total deficiencies
Formal regulatory issues recorded by inspectors across all inspection types.
| 3 | 7.0 | This facility has 57% fewer total deficiencies than a typical Michigan nursing home (3 vs. MI avg 7).↓ 57% better |
|
Deficiencies per inspection
Average deficiencies per inspection.
| 0.5 | 1.3 | This facility has 62% fewer deficiencies per inspection than a typical Michigan nursing home (0.5 vs. MI avg 1.3).↓ 62% better |
Inspections
| This Facility | MI Average | vs. MI Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Total inspections
Combined count of all inspections conducted at this facility.
| 6 | 5.0 | This facility has had 20% more total inspections than the Michigan average (6 vs. MI avg 5). More inspections can mean more regulatory scrutiny rather than worse care.↑ 20% more |
CMS Health Inspection History
Federal inspection data published by CMS, covering this home's Medicare and/or Medicaid-certified skilled-nursing/nursing beds only.
Total health inspections
3
↓ 55% · MI 6.7This facility: 3, 55% below the MI average of 6.7 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Total health citations
13
Rank #17 / 126Health citations — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 17th out of 126 nursing homes we track in Michigan for health citations. Shows this facility's total health deficiency citations benchmarked to the Michigan State average, with a ranking across all 126 MI facilities. Lower citation counts earn a better rank. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.↓ 60% · MI 32.4This facility: 13, 60% below the MI average of 32.4 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Citations per inspection
4.33
Rank #56 / 126Citations per inspection — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 56th out of 126 nursing homes we track in Michigan for citations per inspection. Shows average deficiency citations per CMS inspection for this facility versus the Michigan mean across 126 facilities with citation data. Lower is better. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.↓ 10% · MI 4.79This facility: 4.33, 10% below the MI average of 4.79 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Citation severity
100% corrected
13 of 13 citations corrected
Critical
J–L
0
↓ 100% · MI 0.3This facility: 0, 100% below the MI average of 0.3 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Immediate jeopardy
Serious
G–I
0
↓ 100% · MI 1.7This facility: 0, 100% below the MI average of 1.7 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Actual harm
Moderate
D–F
13
↓ 57% · MI 30This facility: 13, 57% below the MI average of 30 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
No harm, more than minimal risk
Minor
A–C
0
↓ 100% · MI 0.4This facility: 0, 100% below the MI average of 0.4 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
No harm, minimal riskLatest inspection: Aug 06, 2025 · 2 citations, all corrected
Most cited category: Resident Assessment & Care Planning, 4 of 13 citations · 4 categories in total
Citations history
Most recent first
Aug 06, 2025
2 citations
Nutrition moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Aug 08, 2024
2 citations
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
May 25, 2023
9 citations
Nutrition moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Quality of Care moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Care Planning moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Resident Rights moderate citation
Corrected
Corrected
Top deficiency categories
Share of 13 citations
Resident Assessment & Care Planning
4 deficiencies (31%)
Quality of Life & Care
4 deficiencies (31%)
Resident Rights
3 deficiencies (23%)
Nutrition & Dietary
2 deficiencies (15%)
How citations are counted
Health citations are formal notices following inspections when they fail to comply with safety and care standards.
All 13 citations resulted from standard inspections.
Includes all CMS health inspection records for this property, which could include management/ownership changes.
Source
Data sourced from CMS Health Deficiencies reports, which cover the Medicare and/or Medicaid-certified skilled-nursing and nursing beds and no other part of the community. Citation severity codes range from A (least serious) to L (most serious). Immediate Jeopardy (J-L) citations indicate situations where the facility's noncompliance has placed residents at risk of death or serious harm.
Enforcement
Penalties and fines
Penalties and fines
Federal penalties imposed by CMS for regulatory violations, including civil money penalties (fines) and denials of payment for new Medicare/Medicaid admissions.
Source: CMS Penalties Database · Data as of Aug 2026
No penalties in the past 3 years
No civil money penalties or payment denials on record since Aug 2023.
Total fines
$0
MI avg $66KMichigan average: $66,103. Average among the 196 Michigan facilities with a penalty on record.US avg $67KUS average: $67,417, among the 6,775 US facilities with a penalty on record.
Number of fines
0
MI avg 1.52Michigan average: 1.52. Average among the 196 Michigan facilities with a penalty on record.US avg 1.96US average: 1.96, among the 6,775 US facilities with a penalty on record.
Payment denials
Serious action where Medicare and/or Medicaid temporarily stops payments for new residents until issues are fixed.
Serious action where Medicare and/or Medicaid temporarily stops payments for new residents until issues are fixed.
0
MI avg 0.83Michigan average: 0.83. Average among the 196 Michigan facilities with a penalty on record.US avg 0.36US average: 0.36, among the 6,775 US facilities with a penalty on record.
Health Outcomes
Quality of care over time
How residents at this home fare on health outcomes and preventive care, compared with the Michigan average.
CMS star rating for the care of long-stay residents, who live at the home for 100 days or more. It is built from the long-stay quality measures below. 5 stars is the best.
4
/ 5
Above average
↓ 2% · MI 4.1This facility: 4.0, 2% below the MI average of 4.1 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
CMS star rating for the care of short-stay residents, mostly people recovering after a hospital stay for under 100 days. It is built from the short-stay quality measures below. 5 stars is the best.
5
/ 5
Significantly above average
↑ 53% · MI 3.3This facility: 5.0, 53% above the MI average of 3.3 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Average of five long-stay measures: pressure ulcers, falls with major injury, unplanned weight loss, worsening ability to walk, and needing more help with daily activities. Each is the % of residents affected, so lower is better.
8.6
Score · lower is better
↑ 19% · MI 7.2This facility: 8.6, 19% above the MI average of 7.2 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Average of three long-stay measures: needing more help with daily activities, worsening ability to walk, and loss of bowel or bladder control. Each is the % of residents affected, so lower is better.
20.0
Score · lower is better
↑ 40% · MI 14.3This facility: 20.0, 40% above the MI average of 14.3 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.13 long-stay measures: 8 better, 5 worse
8 short-stay measures: 4 better, 1 near MI average, 3 compared with US only
Long-stay residents
People who live at the home · 13 measures
Daily care & independence
Needed more help with daily activities
Percent of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased
8.5%
↓ 21% · MI 10.8This facility: 8.5, 21% below the MI average of 10.8 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased
8.5%
↓ 21% · MI 10.8This facility: 8.5, 21% below the MI average of 10.8 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Walking ability worsened
Percent of long-stay residents whose ability to move independently worsened
21.5%
↑ 79% · MI 12.0This facility: 21.5, 79% above the MI average of 12.0 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents whose ability to move independently worsened
21.5%
↑ 79% · MI 12.0This facility: 21.5, 79% above the MI average of 12.0 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Bowel or bladder incontinence (low-risk residents)
Percent of low risk long-stay residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
30.0%
↑ 50% · MI 20.0This facility: 30.0, 50% above the MI average of 20.0 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of low risk long-stay residents who lose control of their bowels or bladder
30.0%
↑ 50% · MI 20.0This facility: 30.0, 50% above the MI average of 20.0 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Safety & clinical stability
Urinary tract infection
Percent of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection
1.7%
↑ 10% · MI 1.5This facility: 1.7, 10% above the MI average of 1.5 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection
1.7%
↑ 10% · MI 1.5This facility: 1.7, 10% above the MI average of 1.5 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Falls with major injury
Percent of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
7.8%
↑ 165% · MI 3.0This facility: 7.8, 165% above the MI average of 3.0 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury
7.8%
↑ 165% · MI 3.0This facility: 7.8, 165% above the MI average of 3.0 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Pressure ulcers (high-risk residents)
Percent of long-stay high risk residents with pressure ulcers
2.9%
↓ 44% · MI 5.1This facility: 2.9, 44% below the MI average of 5.1 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay high risk residents with pressure ulcers
2.9%
↓ 44% · MI 5.1This facility: 2.9, 44% below the MI average of 5.1 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Physical & mental health
Lost too much weight
Percent of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
2.1%
↓ 61% · MI 5.4This facility: 2.1, 61% below the MI average of 5.4 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents who lose too much weight
2.1%
↓ 61% · MI 5.4This facility: 2.1, 61% below the MI average of 5.4 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Depressive symptoms
Percent of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
0.0%
↓ 100% · MI 4.3This facility: 0.0, 100% below the MI average of 4.3 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents who have depressive symptoms
0.0%
↓ 100% · MI 4.3This facility: 0.0, 100% below the MI average of 4.3 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Antipsychotic use
Percent of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
8.6%
↓ 42% · MI 14.8This facility: 8.6, 42% below the MI average of 14.8 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication
8.6%
↓ 42% · MI 14.8This facility: 8.6, 42% below the MI average of 14.8 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Preventive care
Pneumococcal vaccine
Percent of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
100.0%
↑ 5% · MI 95.3This facility: 100.0, 5% above the MI average of 95.3 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
100.0%
↑ 5% · MI 95.3This facility: 100.0, 5% above the MI average of 95.3 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Flu vaccine
Percent of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
100.0%
↑ 5% · MI 95.0This facility: 100.0, 5% above the MI average of 95.0 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of long-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
100.0%
↑ 5% · MI 95.0This facility: 100.0, 5% above the MI average of 95.0 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Hospital & emergency visits
Hospitalizations per 1,000 days
Number of hospitalizations per 1,000 long-stay resident days.
2.42
↑ 39% · MI 1.74This facility: 2.42, 39% above the MI average of 1.74 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Number of hospitalizations per 1,000 long-stay resident days.
2.42
↑ 39% · MI 1.74This facility: 2.42, 39% above the MI average of 1.74 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
ER visits per 1,000 days
Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1,000 long-stay resident days.
1.08
↓ 30% · MI 1.54This facility: 1.08, 30% below the MI average of 1.54 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1,000 long-stay resident days.
1.08
↓ 30% · MI 1.54This facility: 1.08, 30% below the MI average of 1.54 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Short-stay residents
Rehab and recovery after a hospital stay · 8 measures
Daily care & independence
Able to care for self at discharge
Percentage of residents at or above expected ability to care for themselves at discharge.
63.2%
↑ 18% · US 53.7This facility: 63.2, 18% above the US average of 53.7 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).
Percentage of residents at or above expected ability to care for themselves at discharge.
63.2%
↑ 18% · US 53.7This facility: 63.2, 18% above the US average of 53.7 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).
Returned home or to the community
Rate of successful return to home or community from a skilled nursing facility.
66.3%
↑ 31% · US 50.6This facility: 66.3, 31% above the US average of 50.6 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).
Rate of successful return to home or community from a skilled nursing facility.
66.3%
↑ 31% · US 50.6This facility: 66.3, 31% above the US average of 50.6 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).Safety & clinical stability
Falls with major injury
Percentage of SNF residents who experience falls with major injury during their stay.
0.8%
↑ 3% · US 0.8This facility: 0.8, 3% above the US average of 0.8 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).
Percentage of SNF residents who experience falls with major injury during their stay.
0.8%
↑ 3% · US 0.8This facility: 0.8, 3% above the US average of 0.8 (among US facilities reporting a recent figure).Physical & mental health
New antipsychotic medication
Percent of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
0.2%
↓ 82% · MI 1.1This facility: 0.2, 82% below the MI average of 1.1 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication
0.2%
↓ 82% · MI 1.1This facility: 0.2, 82% below the MI average of 1.1 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Preventive care
Pneumococcal vaccine
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
99.2%
↑ 19% · MI 83.3This facility: 99.2, 19% above the MI average of 83.3 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
99.2%
↑ 19% · MI 83.3This facility: 99.2, 19% above the MI average of 83.3 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Flu vaccine
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
98.4%
↑ 24% · MI 79.5This facility: 98.4, 24% above the MI average of 79.5 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percent of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the seasonal influenza vaccine
98.4%
↑ 24% · MI 79.5This facility: 98.4, 24% above the MI average of 79.5 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Hospital & emergency visits
Re-hospitalized after admission
Percentage of short-stay residents who were re-hospitalized after their nursing home admission.
21.8%
↓ 10% · MI 24.2This facility: 21.8, 10% below the MI average of 24.2 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percentage of short-stay residents who were re-hospitalized after their nursing home admission.
21.8%
↓ 10% · MI 24.2This facility: 21.8, 10% below the MI average of 24.2 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
ER visits
Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit.
11.1%
↓ 3% · MI 11.5This facility: 11.1, 3% below the MI average of 11.5 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.
Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit.
11.1%
↓ 3% · MI 11.5This facility: 11.1, 3% below the MI average of 11.5 (among MI facilities reporting a recent figure).Green: 5% or more better than the state average. Yellow: within 5%. Red: 5% or more worse.Arrows show whether a figure is above or below the average. Green is better for residents, red is worse, and yellow means within 5% of the average. Grey compares with the US average only, because CMS publishes no state figure. The line on each bar marks the average.
Quality measures are calculated by CMS from Minimum Data Set (MDS) resident assessments and Medicare claims.
Money and staffing.
Chelsea Retirement Community’s finances from its CMS cost report for the fiscal year ending June 2025, compared with 124 Michigan nursing homes that filed a recent report. Includes all financial data for this property, which could include management/ownership changes.
FY Jun 2025
Is it financially stable?
Losing money on care, but less than last year
−6.0% operating margin
+1.7 pts vs prior year
An operating loss in 6 of the last 8 reported years. Other income ($2.8M) turns it into a net profit to $0.5M. Watch for cost-cutting that reaches staffing.
Does it invest in staff?
Payroll in line with Michigan homes
55.1% payroll share of revenue
MI average 55.9%Rank #45 / 124Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 45th out of 124 nursing homes we track in Michigan for payroll % of net patient revenue. Shows payroll as a percentage of net patient revenue versus the Michigan average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Below 25% may signal understaffing or heavy agency use — read with Staffing ratings. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric.
Payroll rose $1.2M while revenue rose $1.7M. Check hours per resident in the staffing section to confirm it reaches the floor.
FY 2025 scorecard
Each row shows the FY 2025 figure, the change since the prior report, the trend, and how it compares with Michigan homes.
Revenue & profit
Big revenue, persistent losses
| Metric | FY 2025 | vs prior year | Trend 2017 → 2025Trend | MI median | Compared with MI homesRank in MI | In short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net patient revenue What the home earns from resident care, after discounts and bad debt. | $38.3M | +$1.7M | Trend 20172025 | MI median $12.5M | Rank in MI Rank #1 / 124Net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 1st out of 124 nursing homes we track in Michigan for net patient revenue. Shows this facility's net patient revenue compared to the Michigan average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Higher revenue generally means more resources for staffing and capital — read alongside Payroll %. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 100% of homes | Top 2% in MI Higher net patient revenue than 100% of MI homes that filed a recent report. Revenue mostly follows how big a home is. |
| Operating expenses Everything it costs to run the home: staff, supplies, rent, admin. | $40.6M | +$1.2M | Trend 20172025 | MI median — | Rank in MI Not ranked | Exceeds revenue Operating expenses are higher than net patient revenue, so resident care runs at a loss. |
| Net patient income Revenue minus operating expenses. Negative means care loses money. | −$2.3M | +$0.5M | Trend 20172025 | MI median — | Rank in MI Not ranked | Loss, narrowing Resident care lost money this year, less than in the prior report. |
| Operating margin Net patient income as a share of revenue. The clearest health signal. | −6.0% | +1.7 pts | Trend 20172025 | MI median — | Rank in MI Not ranked | Loss A negative margin means resident care costs more than it earns. |
| Other income Money not from resident care: investments, grants, services. | $2.8M | — | Trend — | MI median — | Rank in MI Not ranked | Offsets part of the loss Income from outside resident care covers part of the loss on care. |
| Net income The bottom line after other income. | $0.5M | +$4.0M | Trend — | MI median — | Rank in MI Not ranked | Profit The bottom line is above zero after other income. |
Staffing spend
Staff spending in line with Michigan homes
| Metric | FY 2025 | vs prior year | Trend 2017 → 2025Trend | MI median | Compared with MI homesRank in MI | In short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payroll costs Salaries and wage-related benefits, not counting contract labor. | $21.1M | +$1.2M | Trend 20172025 | MI median $6.7M | Rank in MI Rank #2 / 124Payroll costs — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 2nd out of 124 nursing homes we track in Michigan for payroll costs. Shows total staff payroll — salaries plus wage-related benefits — benchmarked to the Michigan average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Higher payroll relative to peers often signals better staffing and less reliance on contract labor. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 99% of homes | Top 2% in MI by size Higher payroll than 99% of MI homes. Payroll in dollars mostly follows how big a home is, so this compares size, not staffing levels. |
| Payroll share of revenue Payroll divided by revenue. Higher usually means more staff per resident. | 55.1% | +0.8 pts | Trend 20172025 | MI median 52.7% | Rank in MI Rank #45 / 124Payroll % of net patient revenue — State benchmarked This nursing home is ranked 45th out of 124 nursing homes we track in Michigan for payroll % of net patient revenue. Shows payroll as a percentage of net patient revenue versus the Michigan average, among facilities reporting a recent fiscal year. Below 25% may signal understaffing or heavy agency use — read with Staffing ratings. Communities with the same value for a metric share the same rank. Rankings compare like with like: every nursing home we track in Michigan that reports data for that category. Nursing homes without available data are excluded, so the pool size varies from metric to metric. Higher than 64% of homes | Near MI average The MI average is 55.9% of revenue. Within 3 points of it reads as near the average. |
Charts, 2017–2025 2 charts · MI benchmark drawn as a dashed line
Revenue, expenses and income
What the home earned from resident care (net patient revenue), what it cost to run (operating expenses) and the difference between the two (net patient income), for each fiscal year it filed a CMS cost report.
USD, millions
Net patient revenue Operating expenses Net patient income No report
Where revenue goes
Both lines are a share of net patient revenue. Payroll share is what goes to salaries and wage-related benefits; operating margin is what is left after every operating cost (below 0%, resident care lost money). The dashed line is the Michigan payroll average.
% of net patient revenue
Payroll share Operating margin MI payroll average No report
Year-by-year data, 2017–2025 every reported year · latest first, scroll sideways
| Metric | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021no report | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net patient revenue | $30.0M | $31.5M | $31.4M | $29.5M | $30.7M | $33.2M | $36.6M | $38.3M | |
| Operating expenses | $29.1M | $31.0M | $32.6M | $34.0M | $37.2M | $37.6M | $39.4M | $40.6M | |
| Net patient income | $0.9M | $0.5M | −$1.2M | −$4.5M | −$6.4M | −$4.4M | −$2.8M | −$2.3M | |
| Operating margin | 3.0% | 1.6% | −4.0% | −15.4% | −20.9% | −13.3% | −7.7% | −6.0% | |
| Net income | $2.9M | $2.8M | $2.1M | −$0.2M | −$17.6M | −$0.6M | −$3.5M | $0.5M | |
| Payroll costs | $13.7M | $14.5M | $15.6M | $15.4M | $18.0M | $17.8M | $19.8M | $21.1M | |
| Payroll share of revenue | 45.6% | 46.0% | 49.6% | 52.2% | 58.7% | 53.7% | 54.3% | 55.1% | |
| Beds | 383 | 407 | 248 | 257 | 257 | 257 | 257 | 257 | |
| Gross revenue | $33.3M | $35.1M | $35.5M | $33.2M | $21.9M | $23.4M | $26.4M | $29.7M | |
| Salaries | $11.9M | $12.5M | $13.2M | $13.2M | $15.7M | $15.6M | $17.3M | $18.6M | |
| Wage-related costs | $1.8M | $2.0M | $2.4M | $2.1M | $2.4M | $2.3M | $2.6M | $2.5M | |
| Contract labor | $0.1M | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Other operating costs | $15.4M | $16.5M | $17.0M | $18.6M | $19.1M | $19.8M | $19.5M | $19.5M | |
| Net patient revenue per day | $241 | $246 | $487 | $432 | $415 | $447 | $471 | $493 | |
| Cost per day | $234 | $242 | $506 | $499 | $501 | $507 | $508 | $523 | |
| Average length of stay | 49.8 days | 52.5 days | 42.2 days | 60.7 days | 67.7 days | 49.1 days | 44.4 days | 59.3 days |
Showing 2025–2023 · scroll sideways for 6 earlier years
Earlier and partial years are in the download. Download CSV
Who this home usually serves
Residents split by who pays for their care: Medicare, Medicaid, or private pay and other sources.
Over a year: CMS SNF Cost Report, FY2025
Snapshot: CMS Long-Term Care Facility Characteristics (quarterly), Jun 2026
Arriving
517 admissions · FY2025
Residents admitted during the year.
Medicare
231 · 45%
Medicaid
4 · 1%
Private pay & other
282 · 55%
Resident snapshot
83 residents · Jun 2026
Residents counted on the date of the latest CMS report, which updates quarterly.
Medicare
33 · 40%
Medicaid
30 · 36%
Private pay & other
20 · 24%
Leaving
503 discharges · FY2025
Residents discharged during the year.
Medicare
213 · 42%
Medicaid
6 · 1%
Private pay & other
284 · 56%
Mix of rehab and long-term care
This home supports both short-term rehab and long-term care, with residents staying for a wide range of durations.
Living Spaces & Floor Plans for Chelsea Retirement Community
Places of interest near Chelsea Retirement Community
0.8 miles from city center
Estimated distance in miles from Chelsea's city center to Chelsea Retirement Community's address, calculated via Google Maps.
Calculate Travel Distance to Chelsea Retirement Community
Add your location
Compare Nursing Homes around the area
Info below is compiled from CMS reports & the MI Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (LARA), senior community websites & trusted data sources such as Walk Score & BBB.
Communities are listed from highest-ranked to lowest-ranked based on our methodology.
The facility name. Click to view the full profile page on Assisted Living Magazine, including photos, services, and contact info.
|
CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that regulates nursing homes) Overall 5-star rating — a composite of Health Inspection, Staffing, and Quality Measures scores. 5 stars = top 10% nationally. 1 star = bottom 10%. The single most important number to start with when comparing facilities.
|
Care Types in This Table
AL (Assisted Living):
Housing with help for daily activities like bathing, dressing, and medication, without 24-hour skilled nursing.
NH (Nursing Home):
24/7 skilled nursing care for residents with complex, ongoing medical needs.
SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility):
Round-the-clock nursing care, often for recovery after surgery, injury, or illness.
MC (Memory Care):
Secured, specialized care for people living with Alzheimer's or dementia.
RC (Respite Care):
Short-term temporary care that gives family caregivers a break.
IL (Independent Living):
Community living with dining, activities, and transportation for active seniors who need little personal care.
ADC (Adult Day Care):
Daytime supervision, health monitoring, and social activities for seniors who live at home.
CCRC (Continuing Care Retirement Community):
A campus with multiple care levels so residents can age in place without moving.
|
Neighborhood or city area where the facility is located. Proximity to family, hospitals, and green space matters for both quality of life and ease of visitation. Consider drive time and transit access when evaluating location.
|
Licensed bed capacity. Larger facilities (300+ beds) often have more specialized programs but can feel institutional. Smaller homes (under 150 beds) tend to deliver more personalized care. Compare with Avg Res/Day to understand how full the facility typically runs.
|
Percentage of licensed beds filled on an average day. Color indicates financial health: green (90%+) = operationally strong, typically profitable. Amber (80–89%) = stable but leaving revenue on the table. Orange (70–79%) = financial strain likely, may struggle with fixed costs. Red (<70%) = significant distress, closure or ownership change risk increases sharply.
|
This facility's occupancy rate compared to the statewide average for similar facilities. A positive number means above-average demand. Facilities running 5%+ above the state average are typically the most sought-after in their market — a strong proxy for reputation.
|
CMS-adjusted total nurse hours per resident per day (RN + LPN + CNA combined). The national average is approximately 3.5 hrs. Higher is better — more direct care time per resident. Below 3.0 is a red flag. CMS weights RN hours more heavily because RNs handle complex clinical decisions that CNAs cannot.
|
CMS Health Inspection star rating (1–5 stars), based on the 3 most recent annual state surveys plus any complaint investigations. This is the hardest rating to manipulate — it reflects real surveyor findings on-site. 5 stars = fewest deficiencies found. 1 star = most. It carries the heaviest weight in the Overall CMS rating.
|
CMS Staffing star rating (1–5 stars), based on daily nurse staffing hours submitted to CMS via verified payroll data. Compares RN, LPN, and CNA coverage relative to resident acuity level. 5 stars = well above expected staffing. Weekend staffing is evaluated separately, as that's where many facilities quietly reduce coverage.
|
CMS Quality Measures star rating (1–5 stars), based on 15 clinical outcome metrics including fall rates, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic drug use, and hospital readmissions. Captures actual resident health outcomes, not just compliance. High QM combined with low Health Inspection scores can indicate a facility with strong care but weak documentation practices.
|
Registered Nurse hours per resident/day compared to the statewide average. RNs are the highest-skilled nursing staff — they assess residents, manage medications, and respond to emergencies. A value of +50% means RN coverage is 50% above the state norm. Negative values are a concern for residents with complex or acute medical needs.
|
Total nursing staff hours (RN + LPN + CNA combined) per resident/day vs. the statewide average. A broader measure than RN vs State — it captures the entire care team. A facility can have high total staffing but low RN hours, meaning more aides and fewer nurses. Read both columns together for the full picture.
|
Total dollar amount of federal monetary fines (civil money penalties) issued by CMS in the past 3 years. Fines are only levied for serious violations — typically actual harm to residents, repeated uncorrected deficiencies, or systemic non-compliance. Even a single fine is noteworthy. Multiple fines strongly suggest a pattern, not isolated incidents.
|
Total health deficiency citations from the most recent standard inspection cycle. Minor citations (scope A–C) are common and often administrative in nature. Higher counts aren't always disqualifying, but should be read alongside Severe Citations to understand actual harm levels. Under 10 is strong for a large facility; 30+ warrants a closer look.
|
Average deficiency citations per CMS inspection (survey) in the reporting window — total citations divided by the number of inspections. Lower is better; compare alongside total Citations and Severe Citations for context.
|
Citations at CMS scope/severity level G or higher — G–I means actual harm occurred; J–L means residents were placed in immediate jeopardy. (D–F is potential for harm only). Examples include unaddressed falls, medication errors causing injury, neglect, or abuse.
|
Average number of residents in the building on any given day, derived from annual census data. Reflects true operating scale — a 400-bed facility running 200 residents/day operates very differently from one at 390. Higher resident counts generally mean more funded staffing hours.
|
Better Business Bureau rating (A+ to F). Reflects complaint history, business transparency, and how family disputes were resolved. A+ means no significant unresolved complaints. A blank (—) means the facility isn't BBB-accredited, which is common for healthcare providers and not necessarily a negative signal.
|
Walk Score® (0–100). Measures walkability of the surrounding area. 90–100 = Walker's Paradise. 70–89 = Very Walkable. 50–69 = Somewhat Walkable. Below 50 = Car-Dependent. Higher scores benefit family visitors, resident outings, and staff commuting.
|
The licensed owner or operator of record filed with CMS — the individual or organization legally accountable for the facility. Searching the operator name across other facilities can reveal chain or multi-site ownership, which matters: chain-operated homes tend to have more variable quality outcomes than independently run facilities.
|
What the home actually collects for resident care, after contractual allowances, bad debt and discounts — not gross billings. Taken from the latest complete annual cost report, so it is comparable across homes reporting the same period. Revenue alone doesn't indicate care quality, but it funds staffing and capital reinvestment. Pair with Payroll %. Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
Staff salaries plus wage-related benefits from the latest complete annual cost report. Contract and agency labour is counted separately, under other operating costs, so a home leaning on agency staff can show a low figure here. Payroll is the cost most directly tied to care quality — compare with Payroll % for full context. Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
Payroll as a share of NET PATIENT REVENUE (not gross revenue). Both figures come from the same cost-report year. A higher figure means more of each revenue dollar goes to staff pay. Read with the Staffing star rating to judge whether spend translates into coverage — and note that homes whose patient revenue covers only part of their operation can read implausibly high. The Michigan average is: 55.9% Figures are from each facility's most recent complete fiscal year — hover a value for the exact year; a * marks homes that report an older period than most facilities.
|
CMS Certification Number: the unique federal identifier for this skilled nursing provider.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Willows at Howell | NH ADC AL IL MC SNF | Howell | 39
Facility
39
MI AVG
100
Rank
#112 / 131 | - | - | 3.61
Facility
3.61
MI AVG
4.37
Rank
#109 / 127 | +87% | -18% | $0
Facility
$0
MI AVG
$78.1k
Rank
#1 / 127 | 14
Facility
14
MI AVG
32.4
Rank
#21 / 126 | 2.8
Facility
2.8
MI AVG
4.8
Rank
#14 / 126 | - | 54 | - |
78
Facility
78
MI AVG
41
Rank
#9 / 157 | Trilogy Healthcare Of Livingston, LLC | $14.0MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$14.0MFiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
$14.1M
Rank
#49 / 124 | $6.7MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$6.7MFiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
$7.9M
Rank
#63 / 124 | 47.7%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
47.7%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
55.9%
Rank
#107 / 124 | 235707 | ||||
| Chelsea Retirement Community | NH AL CCRC IL MC SNF | Chelsea | 172
Facility
172
MI AVG
100
Rank
#10 / 131 | - | - | 4.65
Facility
4.65
MI AVG
4.37
Rank
#39 / 127 | -12% | +6% | $0
Facility
$0
MI AVG
$78.1k
Rank
#1 / 127 | 13
Facility
13
MI AVG
32.4
Rank
#17 / 126 | 4.3
Facility
4.3
MI AVG
4.8
Rank
#56 / 126 | - | 81 | - |
13
Facility
13
MI AVG
41
Rank
#135 / 157 | United Methodist Retirement Communities Inc | $38.3MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$38.3MFiscal year ending 06/2025
MI AVG
$14.1M
Rank
#1 / 124 | $21.1MFiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
$21.1MFiscal year ending 06/2025
MI AVG
$7.9M
Rank
#2 / 124 | 55.1%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
Facility
55.1%Fiscal year ending 06/2025
MI AVG
55.9%
Rank
#45 / 124 | 235021 | ||||
| The Oaks at Belmont | NH AL IL MC SNF | Belmont | 41
Facility
41
MI AVG
100
Rank
#109 / 131 | - | - | 3.85
Facility
3.85
MI AVG
4.37
Rank
#53 / 127 | +65% | -12% | $0
Facility
$0
MI AVG
$78.1k
Rank
#1 / 127 | 7
Facility
7
MI AVG
32.4
Rank
#5 / 126 | 1.8
Facility
1.8
MI AVG
4.8
Rank
#3 / 126 | 1 | 53 | - |
26
Facility
26
MI AVG
41
Rank
#109 / 157 | Trilogy Healthcare Of Belmont, LLC | $13.8MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$13.8MFiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
$14.1M
Rank
#50 / 124 | $7.0MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$7.0MFiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
$7.9M
Rank
#53 / 124 | 50.9%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
50.9%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
55.9%
Rank
#78 / 124 | 235727 | ||||
| The Rivers Assisted Living | NH AL IL MC SNF | Grosse Pointe Woods | 100
Facility
100
MI AVG
100
Rank
#63 / 131 | - | - | 4.83
Facility
4.83
MI AVG
4.37
Rank
#29 / 127 | -56% | +10% | $0
Facility
$0
MI AVG
$78.1k
Rank
#1 / 127 | 20
Facility
20
MI AVG
32.4
Rank
#38 / 126 | 4.0
Facility
4.0
MI AVG
4.8
Rank
#44 / 126 | - | 79 | - |
84
Facility
84
MI AVG
41
Rank
#4 / 157 | The Rivers Assisted Living LLC | $11.0MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$11.0MFiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
$14.1M
Rank
#84 / 124 | $5.4MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$5.4MFiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
$7.9M
Rank
#93 / 124 | 49.6%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
49.6%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
55.9%
Rank
#88 / 124 | 235709 | ||||
| Symphony Linden | NH AL MC RC SNF | Linden | 20
Facility
20
MI AVG
100
Rank
#123 / 131 | - | - | 3.32
Facility
3.32
MI AVG
4.37
Rank
#109 / 127 | -28% | -24% | $0
Facility
$0
MI AVG
$78.1k
Rank
#1 / 127 | 58
Facility
58
MI AVG
32.4
Rank
#112 / 126 | 8.3
Facility
8.3
MI AVG
4.8
Rank
#120 / 126 | 1 | 57 | - |
52
Facility
52
MI AVG
41
Rank
#52 / 157 | Symphony Of Linden Health Care Center, LLC | $11.2MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$11.2MFiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
$14.1M
Rank
#82 / 124 | $5.7MFiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
$5.7MFiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
$7.9M
Rank
#85 / 124 | 51.1%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
Facility
51.1%Fiscal year ending 12/2024
MI AVG
55.9%
Rank
#76 / 124 | 235646 |
Rank badges are statewide and care-type specific: each nursing home is ranked against every other MI nursing home we track that reports that metric, not just the 5 on this page. See how we rank facilities
Frequently Asked Questions about Chelsea Retirement Community
Who is the owner of Chelsea Retirement Community?
Chelsea Retirement Community is legally operated by United Methodist Retirement Communities Inc.
Is Chelsea Retirement Community in a walkable area?
Chelsea Retirement Community has a walk score of 13. Car-dependent. Most errands require a car, with limited nearby walkable options.
What is the license number of Chelsea Retirement Community?
According to MI state health department records, Chelsea Retirement Community's license number is AH810236762.
When does Chelsea Retirement Community's license expire?
According to MI state health department records, Chelsea Retirement Community's license expires on July 31, 2027.
What is the occupancy rate at Chelsea Retirement Community?
Chelsea Retirement Community's occupancy is 82.7%.
Are pets allowed at Chelsea Retirement Community?
Yes, Chelsea Retirement Community allows residents to bring their pets.
Does Chelsea Retirement Community operate as a for-profit or non-profit?
Chelsea Retirement Community is registered as a non-profit in MI.
Guides for Better Senior Living
Care Cost Calculator: See Prices in Your Area
Nursing Home Data Explorer
Don’t Wait Too Long: 7 Red Flag Signs Your Parent Needs Assisted Living Now
The True Cost of Assisted Living in 2025 – And How Families Are Paying For It
Understanding Senior Living Costs: Pricing Models, Discounts & Financial Assistance
Updated on
