Heritage House
1200 Brookridge Circle, Atlantic, IA 50022 · Non profit - Corporation · 61 certified beds · (712) 243-1850 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 fell from 5 to 4 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 | 13.6% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.2% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.6% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.8% | 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 | 5.5% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.2% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.0% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.1% | 25.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.2% | 19.5% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 57.1% | 73.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.6% | 20.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.9% | 13.2% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.75 | 1.49 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.00 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
39.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 96 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.4% 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 45 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 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 17% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 | 39.9%CMS range 33.2–47.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.5%CMS range 6.7–13.9 | 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 | 64.4% | 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 | 48.9% | 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 | 40.0% | 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 | 84.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 1.9% | 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 | 6.8%CMS range 3.5–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.69 | 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 61 beds and averages 58.5 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 2 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.96 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.60 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 3.54 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.13 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.77 to 0.41 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-11 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 observation, resident interview, staff interview, document review and policy review the facility failed to provide food that was appetizing to eat and palatable to 4 of 16 residents reviewed (Resident #3, #5, #10 and #17). The facility reported a census of 55 residents.Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #3 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment.On 9/8/25 at 12:19 PM Resident #3 stated the ham was dry and not enough for a child. Resident #3 stated the ham was cold. Resident #3 stated the ham is so dry he could not even eat it. Resident #3 stated look at this it just fell to little pieces. Observation on 9/8/25 at 12:17 PM revealed Resident #3's lunch meal room tray was brought into his room. Resident #3 picked up the ham and squeezed the ham in his hand. Ham fell to small pieces on Resident #3's plate. Ham appeared dark in color and very dry.2. The MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #5 documented a BIMS score…
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 · Ecited before2025-09-11 · 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 ensure open items were dated, covered and labeled. The facility further failed to maintain clean surfaces and flooring in the kitchen and food preparation areas and failed to ensure the thermometer used to test food temperatures was clean and sanitized to prevent cross contamination. The facility reported a census of 55 residents. Findings include:Observation 9/8/25 at 10:10 AM in the main kitchen with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) present revealed the following: a. Two open bags of breaded chicken breasts with no date, not sealedb. Two containers of chicken breasts, one without a lid and no date and one with a lid but no date. c. Food debris on the floor by the oven, grill and fryer and in the dry storage pantry. d. Grease build up on the surfaces and sides of the equipment. Observation 9/10/25 at 11:00 AM in the main kitchen with the CDM present revealed the following: a. Grease build up on the sides of the fryer, oven, stove top and grill. This was dried grease and spilled down the sides of…
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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
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 observation, clinical record review, resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide food in a form to meet the resident needs for 1 of 14 residents reviewed (Resident #44). The facility reported a census of 55 residents. Findings Include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #44 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of stroke, anemia, renal insufficiency, malnutrition, unspecified mononeuropathy of left upper limb and hemiplegia affecting left nondominant side. The Care Plan for Resident #44, with a revision date of 4/15/25, included a focus area resident had an Activity of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to CVA (cerebrovascular accident, also known as a stroke) affecting the left side, with a goal of resident will improve current level of function through the review date and the interventions/tasks section indicated the resident was independent with…
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 · D2025-09-11 · 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 observation, Electronic Health Records (EHR) review, policy review and staff interview the facility failed to provide appropriate infection prevention practices when providing care to a resident with a catheter, that was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 1 of 3 reviewed (Resident #3). The facility reported a census of 55 residents.Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #3 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS also documented utilization of an indwelling catheter. Review of Resident #3's EHR titled, Orders documented a physician's order started 8/12/25 to change the indwelling catheter every month and PRN with 18 French with 10mL monthly and as needed. On 9/10/25 at 7:37 AM Staff D, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) completed catheter cares with Resident #3. Staff E present in the room during observation of Resident #3's care. Staff D applied a gown, completed hand hygiene, applied gloves, removed…
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 · E2023-08-10 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean environment throughout the length of resident room accessed hallways, when multiple stains were observed on 1 out of 3 that accessed resident rooms. The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include: On 8/7/23 at 11:00 AM observation of the carpeted hallway A used by residents and visitors revealed excessive stains of various sizes and colors. On 8/7/23 at 1:40 PM in an interview with the Executive Director, he reported the Maintenance Department Supervisor was out of the facility. Facility policy for Floor care was requested but not provided for a review. During an interview on 8/8/23 at 9:50 AM Staff A confirmed carpets were stained and such conditions would have to be reported to the Maintenance Department who then would either shampoo the carpets or replace the stained areas with new carpet squares. On 8/10/23 at 9:00 AM in an interview with the Director of Nursing, she acknowledged that carpets were stained. In an interview on 8/10/23 at 10:30 AM, Staff B…
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 · E2023-08-10 · tag F0800 — patternProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and document review and a facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a well balanced diet that meets nutritional and special dietary needs by use of incorrect serving size portions for meals for 4 of 56 residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include: During a continuous observation on 8/9/23 from 11:00 AM through 12:00 PM Staff C, Chef served lunch. Observed mechanical soft diets served to 4 out of 56 residents. While serving mechanical soft meat, portion scoop not utilized. Staff C tilted the meat container towards each plate and used a spoon to push off the meat onto each plate. Observed first 3 plates to have larger meat portions and the 4th plate received a smaller portion. A review of menu document provided by Staff C on 8/9/23 at 1:30 PM, signed by a Registered Dietician (RD), revealed scoop #8, 4-5 oz, was to be used for measuring mechanical soft meat. Staff C acknowledged he didn't follow the appropriate serving size portion for special diets during lunch service. A review of 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 · Ecited before2023-08-10 · 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 document review, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for 56 of 56 residents. Resident food had not been prepared under sanitary conditions and with clean sanitary equipment. The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include: On 8/7/23 from 10:00 AM-11:00 AM continuous observation during the initial primary kitchen tour revealed the following: 1. The upright stainless steel refrigerator/freezer unit located near cooking equipment revealed the refrigerator unit had a soaked hand towel inside on the bottom portion to absorb excess water leaking on the left side of the unit. Debris noted on the bottom of the fridge. Container #1 with a gravy-like substance, labeled but the label was unreadable. In the freezer unit, Containers #2, #3, #4, #5 not labeled, overfilled with frozen food items, lids not sealed tight. Container #6, #7 not labeled, missing lids, food exposed to air. A buildup of debris noted on the bottom of the freezer. The 2-compartment industrial oil deep fryer…
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 · D2023-08-10 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, 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 notify a resident of charges for services provided for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #49). The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented an admission date of 3/27/23 for Resident #49. The MDS further documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 indicating intact cognition for decision making. Review of Resident #49's clinical record revealed the facility did not provide a documented advance notice for Medicare coverage end of stay. During an interview on 8/09/23 at 1:20pm, the Social Services Director acknowledged documentation regarding the cost of stay at the facility had not been completed on Resident 49's paperwork as expected.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-10 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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, resident interview and staff interviews the facility failed to represent an accurate assessment of the resident's status during the observation period of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) by not accurately recording diagnosis to 1 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident #26). The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Finding include: The MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #26 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed documentation that dialysis was performed while a resident of the facility in the last 14 days. On 8/8/23 at 10:16 AM Resident #26 stated that he is not and never has been on dialysis. Record review of the Care Plan's dated 5/12/23 and 6/27/23 revealed no Care Plan for dialysis. Review of the Progress Notes for the months of May and June 2023 revealed no documentation of dialysis treatment. Review of electronic records titled Assessments for the months of May and June 2023 revealed no documentation…
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 · D2023-08-10 · 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 observations, clinical record review and staff interviews the facility failed to implement the care plan for transfers for 1 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident #20). The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Finding include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #20 documented the resident as severely impaired for cognitive skills. The MDS documented the resident required extensive assist of one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toileting. The Care Plan dated 6/8/23 for Resident #20 documented the resident as assist of one for pivot transfers to/from wheelchair. On 8/9/23 at 9:10 AM observed Staff E Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) transfer Resident #20 without a gait belt. Staff E completed the transfer to the recliner while Resident #20's bedroom door was open. Staff F entered Resident #20 room and told Staff E of gait belt expectations with transfers. On 8/9/23 at 9:15 AM Staff F RN, stated the Staff E is a CNA with hospice. Staff F stated it was her expectation…
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 · D2023-08-10 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy 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 document review and staff interview the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service by not having a certified dietary manager for 56 of 56 residents. The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include: On 8/7/23 at 1:30 PM, a request for documentation from the Executive Director of qualifications for dietary manager revealed no certification or documentation. On 8/9/23 at 4:00 PM the Executive Director stated they are actively recruiting a candidate for the Certified Dietary Manager. She stated the current Dietary Supervisor has been in the management role for one year but is not a certified food service manager, does not have a national certification for food service management and safety from a national certifying body, does not have an associate's or higher degree in food service management or in hospitality, and does not have 2 or more years of experience in the position of director of food and nutrition services in a nursing facility setting.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to WESLEYLIFE — 10 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WESLEYLIFE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/21/2010 |
| SIMPSON, JANET | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| ALBERTSON, KERMIT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| HOEKSEMA, NICOLE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/31/2017 |
| KRETZINGER, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2005 |
| LAGREE, ROGER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2005 |
| RASMUSSEN, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| RUCH, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2005 |
| STOUT, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2011 |
| TAYLOR, CHRISTINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| WATSON, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2014 |
| WESLEY RETIREMENT SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/08/1992 |
2 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 $708K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 165561. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-11, 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.