Algona Manor Care Center
2221 East McGregor Street, Algona, IA 50511 · For profit - Corporation · 46 certified beds · (515) 295-3505 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.7% | 17.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.8% | 4.2% | 6.5% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.7% | 3.8% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.5% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.3% | 20.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.8% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.5% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.8% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.0% | 73.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.52 | 1.49 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.99 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
47.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 56 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 30 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 47% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 47.5%CMS range 35.5–56.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.9%CMS range 7.1–16.6 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 66.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 66.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 46.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 3.2–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.80 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 46 beds and averages 34.6 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.62 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.64 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.34 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.73 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.48 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-12 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to complete a background check for 1 of 6 current employees reviewed (Staff A, Certified Nurse Aide) (CNA). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings include: Review of Staff A, CNA 's employee file documented a hired date of 9/20/24. Further review of the employee file lacked documentation of a background check in the file. During an interview on 6/10/25 at 2:06 PM, the Administrator reported the background check for Staff A, CNA was not completed. She reported the office manager just started around time of hire for Staff A and missed it but it should have been done. The facility Nursing Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy date October 2022 documented the facility will conduct a criminal record check prior to hire, in the manner prescribed under 481 Iowa Administrative Code 58.11(3).
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-12 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a new Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for Level I on 2/27/25 for Resident #27. The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings included: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #27 showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnosis of anxiety, psychotic disorder (other than schizophrenia), and malnutrition. Review of the PASRR Level 1 Screening Outcome dated 8/12/24 for Resident #27 revealed PASRR Level I Determination No Level II Required. Review of the clinical chart revealed this PASRR came with Resident #27 from the hospital when admitted to the facility. The facility failed to submit a new PASRR due to the new diagnosis given on 2/27/25. The Progress Notes dated 2/27/25 for Resident #26 revealed the facility received a new diagnosis of delusions. Interview on 6/10/25 at 2:58 p.m. with the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-08 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interview and a nursing assistant checklist form the facility failed to provide appropriate perineal cares for 1 of 3 residents reviewed, (Res #1). The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include: A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment form dated 9/24/24 indicated Resident #1 had diagnosis that included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia. The assessment indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 out of 15 (cognitively impaired), dependent on staff with toilet transfers and toileting and frequently incontinent of her bowels and bladder. A Care Plan indicated the resident had a Focus area of a requirement of assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's), revised 7/17/24. The Interventions/Tasks included the following as dated. a. Please assist me with toileting upon rising in the morning, before or after activities and at my hour of sleep (HS). Assist me with any incontinent cares as needed. I utilize adult incontinent pull ups.(revised 4.18.24) An observation on 10/8/24 at 12:55 p.m.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to store food items according to professional standards and ensure food items were labeled with dates after opening. The facility identified a census of 35 residents. Findings include: 1. An initial kitchen tour conducted on 8/5/24 at 10:05 AM, of the kitchen revealed the following items were stored/opened in the kitchen's refrigerator ready for service and not labeled with a date after opening: a. American cheese slices in zip lock bag b. Container of ham salad c. Slices of smoked ham in zip lock bag d. Individual packed slices of Swiss cheese e. 46 oz Tomato juice f. 16 oz butter blend spread block- not sealed appropriately g. Cookies Mild salsa h. 1 gallon worcestershire sauce i. Heinz tomato ketchup j. 1 gallon tartar sauce k. 30 oz Mayonnaise l. 24 oz Hershey syrup m. 12 oz Dijon Mustard n. 12 oz honey mustard o. 1 gallon chocolate milk p. Two 1 gallon 2% milk q. Pint Half & Half cream and milk r. Half gallon Almond breeze s. Heavy whipping cream t. 7 servings cucumber salad in individual bowls u.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to revise a Care Plan for 1 of 13 residents reviewed (Resident #21) for prophylactic antibiotic therapy. The facility reported a census of 35. Findings include: Resident #21 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. Resident #21 ' s MDS included diagnoses of coronary artery disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pulmonary embolism (blood clot in lungs) without acute cor pulmonale. The Care Plan with revised date of 7/24/24 identified Resident #21 required assistance with activity of daily living due to COPD. The Care Plan revealed Resident #21 had supplemental oxygen continuously. The Care Plan directed staff to update the Physician with any signs of respiratory distress such as a decreased oxygen saturation and complaints of new onset of shortness of breath. A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide assessment and interventions necessary for the care and services, to maintain the residents' highest practical physical well- being for 1 of 3 resident reviewed (Resident #13) for antibiotic therapy. The facility failed to monitor and complete urinary assessments/interventions for a resident who was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: Resident #13 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 04, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #13 was dependent on staff for toilet transfers and toileting hygiene. The MDS documented Resident #13 was frequently incontinent of urine. Resident #13 ' s MDS included diagnoses of coronary artery disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), urinary tract infection (UTI) in the past 30 days, and non-alzheimer ' s disease. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review, staff interviews and facility policy the facility failed to properly prevent a stage 1 pressure ulcer consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #26). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: The MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment identifies the definition of pressure ulcers: Stage I is an intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence. Darkly pigmented skin may not have a visible blanching; in dark skin tones only it may appear with persistent blue or purple hues. Stage II is partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough (dead tissue, usually cream or yellow in color). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister. Stage III Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle is not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining and tunneling. Stage IV is full…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility failed to follow hand hygiene and gloving practices consistent with accepted standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Residents #1). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: Resident #1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] assessment identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS identified Resident #1 required supervision or touching assistance with rolling in bed and was dependent on staff to sit up or lay down in bed. The MDS identified Resident #1 required a mechanical lift and was dependent on staff for transfers and toileting. Resident #1 ' s MDS included diagnoses of anemia, hypertension (high blood pressure), multidrug-resistant organism, diabetes mellitus,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-08 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolatedImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of facility policy, staff interview and record review the facility failed to follow an antibiotic stewardship program that included antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use for 1 resident (Resident #26). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: The facility form named Nursing Home Physician Fax reported a new order for Resident #26 from the physician dated 1/11/23 for Methenamine 1 Gram, 1 tablet twice daily by prophylactic for urinary tract infection with no end date. The current Clinical Physician ' s Orders dated 8/8/24 for Resident #26 documented Resident #26 continued with the order for Methenamine 1 Gram, take 1 tablet by mouth twice daily related to urinary tract infections. The clinical record lacked documentation that the facility monitored the long term use of Resident #26 ' s antibiotic. An interview on 8/8/26 at 9:30 AM the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated they have a system in place to monitor long term use of antibiotics to assure they were still necessary. The IP revealed they generally review them…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-09 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, Resident Council Minutes and facility policy review the facility failed to answer resident call lights within the allotted professional standards of 15 minutes for 1 of 3 residents reviewed. (Resident #3) The facility identified a census of 32 residents. Findings include: During an interview on 4/5/24 at 1:30 p.m. Resident #3 verbalized a concern related to wait times for her call light. The resident used the clock on her wall and timed the call light on for 30 minutes and even longer at times which made her feel like no one was there for her. Additionally, when staff toileted her and left her in the bathroom for long periods of time it caused pain. During an interview on 4/9/24 at 11:41 a.m. Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) confirmed observations of call lights on longer than 15 minutes on 2nd shift. The staff member indicated some of the reasons had been because some of the residents eat and ran back to room and wanted to go to bed right away. At 6 p.m. staff took breaks, nurse's change of shift and dietary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive and person-centered care plan that included all of the resident ' s medical and psychosocial needs for 3 of 12 residents reviewed (Residents #16, #24, and #29) who had orders for lower leg edema management and hearing aids. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #16 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 08, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated that Resident #16 required extensive assistance of one staff with bed mobility, transfers, ambulation, dressing, personal hygiene and toilet use. The MDS included diagnoses of non-traumatic brain dysfunction, coronary artery disease, non-Alzheimer ' s dementia, right side hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis and weakness), and stroke. Review of resident ' s clinical Progress Notes from April 2020 revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-09-28 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews the facility failed to have a qualified professional serve as the Dietary Manager for the facility. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: During an interview with Staff A, [NAME] on 9/25/23 at 9:15 AM revealed there is currently not a Dietary Manager and the Administrator is overseeing the kitchen right now. During an interview on 9/25/23 at 2:48 PM with the facilities Administrator revealed they do not have a Certified Dietary Manager, they however do have an employee in the class, but she is not working right now.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THOMAS F JUCKETTE MARITAL TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 11/01/2014 |
| JUCKETTE, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/24/2025 |
| CAPSTONE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| FRIDERES, ANGELA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/16/2006 |
| FRIDERES, SAWYER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/30/2024 |
| IRVIN, VICKI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| KNECHT, AMANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 10/10/2007 |
| LEIDER, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/19/2018 |
| MILLER, MARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/21/1994 |
| REFFER, HOLLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/15/2020 |
| SCHANTZEN, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/20/2022 |
| LODDEN, TELFORD | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| BCG HOLDINGS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| BRIGHTON CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| CATTAIL BCG LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| CATTAIL INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| COPPAGE LTC PHARMACY CONSULTING PLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/20/2022 |
| CREATIVE PLANNING HOLD CO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2024 |
| ECSI INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| INTEGRATED HEALTH SYSTEMS INTERMEDIATE, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/25/2015 |
| IOWA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| MILLENNIUM REHAB & CONSULTING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2023 |
| TRAVERSE POINT PANTHERS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/25/2015 |
| ERICKSON-WELTER, SHAWN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/31/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
13 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $96K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165504. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-12, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.