No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Bedford Specialty Care

1005 West Pearl, Bedford, IA 50833 · Non profit - Corporation · 39 certified beds · (712) 523-2161 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (712) 523-2161 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Mar 2024
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • 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 (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Mar 2024
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — 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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1502 Madison St · (712) 523-2196 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
419 Main St · (712) 523-2385 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Hy-Vee0.4 mi
1604 Bent St · (712) 523-2193 · Call to confirm hours
Park
2303 Lake Rd · (712) 523-2700 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 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 3 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased7.1%17.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight1.0%4.6%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.7%1.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection7.9%2.4%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%4.2%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury11.4%3.8%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened13.6%16.6%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication37.8%20.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.4%4.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control20.1%25.6%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table27.4%19.5%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%2.1%1.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission15.9%20.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit9.8%13.2%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.061.491.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days3.112.081.80worse

* 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.

41.6% 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 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

41.6%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
50.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.15U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.07hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
<0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 20 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF41.6%CMS range 26.5–54.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.5%CMS range 6.2–16.010.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge50.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge35.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge25.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified93.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.081.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.41
RN hours/ resident / day
0.96
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.34
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.72
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.30
RN hoursweekends
27.6%
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 39 beds and averages 29.1 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 10 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 3.72 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.41 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.34 is below 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 3.55 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.79 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-07-31)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-09-19)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-31 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    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, interview and clinical record review the facility failed to destroy discontinued Controlled Substances (high potential for abuse) for 2 of 4 residents reviewed (Residents #2 and #6.) The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings include:1) According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #6 had Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The Care Plan updated on 4/9/25, showed that Resident #6 had impaired cognitive function with intermittent confusion, increased confusion, anxiety, and signs and symptoms of sundowning. Staff were to administer medication as ordered. Her diagnoses included: osteoporosis, anxiety disorder, and delirium due to known physiological condition. According to the orders tab in the electronic chart, Resident #6 had an order dated 12/20/24 at 10:45 AM for lorazepam 0.5 milligrams (mg) one tab every 12 hours As Needed (PRN.) The order was discontinued on 1/4/25.2) The MDS dated [DATE],…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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

    Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (Resident #28) of 12 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility reported a census of 29 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #28, dated 8/21/24, included diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia and malnutrition. A Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 99, indicated the resident was unable to complete the assessment indicating severe cognitive impairment for decision-making. The MDS further documented the resident wore a wander guard (bracelet on resident to activate an alarm if the resident goes out the facility door) daily. The Care Plan revised on 8/16/24 documented Resident #28 has impaired cognitive function related to dementia. The Care Plan does not include any wandering risk or use of a wander guard. Observation on 9/17/24 at 2:00 PM, Resident #28 resting on bed with wander guard on right ankle. The Electronic Health Record review for the resident…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-19 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews the facility failed to provide appropriate infection prevention practices by contaminating clean surfaces with contaminated gloves and not completing hand hygiene in accordance with standards of practice for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #25 and #28) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 29 residents. Findings included: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #25 entered the facility on 7/20/24. The MDS also documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 99 indicating Resident #25 was unable to complete the interview. The MDS revealed indwelling catheter utilized by Resident #25. On 9/18/24 at 7:31 AM Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant / Certified Medication Assistant (CNA/CMA) and Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) entered Resident #25's room, completed hand hygiene, applied gloves, and applied gowns. Staff A cleansed Resident #25's penis with peri wipes. Staff A cleansed Resident #25's…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to perform on-going Infection Control surveillance and failed to perform appropriate hand hygiene for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #77) during resident care. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: 1. On 5/01/24 at 11:40 AM, a review of the facility's surveillance binder indicated Infection Control surveillance documentation had not been completed. A document titled Infection Control: Regulations Governing Implementation dated April 2018 indicated the facility must establish an infection prevention and control program (IPCP) that must include, at a minimum, a system of surveillance designed to identify possible communicable diseases or infections before they can spread to other persons in the facility. On 5/01/24 at 11:48 AM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) completed surveillance sheets since the facility's last survey could not be located. She stated the facility only had 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-02 · tag F0623 — isolated
    Provide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review, facility record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to notify the Long-Term Care Ombudsman of discharge/transfer of residents as required for 2 of 3 residents reviewed who were discharged or transferred from the facility (Residents #14, and #22). The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: 1. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #14 dated 4/13/24, included diagnoses of renal (kidney) failure and diabetes. Review of Resident #14's clinical record census sheet revealed the resident transferred to the hospital 1/7/24 and returned to the facility 1/10/24. Review of the facility's Notice of Transfer Form to Long Care Term Ombudsman form for 1/2024 lacked documentation of Resident #14's transfer to the hospital. 2. A Minimum Data Set for Resident #22 dated 3/29/24, included diagnoses of heart failure and diabetes. Review of Resident #22's clinical record census sheet revealed the resident transferred to the hospital 11/26/23 and returned to the facility 12/4/23. Review of the facility's Notice of Transfer…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-02 · tag F0625 — isolated
    Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on resident interview, clinical record review, facility record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide the resident or resident representative with a bed-hold notice at the time of transfer for hospitalization as required for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #14, and #77). The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: 1. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #14 dated 4/13/24, included diagnoses of renal (kidney) failure and diabetes. Review of Resident #14's clinical record census sheet revealed the resident transferred to the hospital 1/7/24 and returned to the facility 1/10/24. Resident #14's bed-hold policy/authorization dated 1/7/24 documented bed hold policy/authorization completed, printed and given to resident, representative and/or sent with hospital transfer paper work with no documentation of the resident/representative confirmation, if confirmation was given or how, and the bed-hold rate. 2. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #77 dated 4/24/24, documented Resident #77 admitted to the facility 4/24/24. Review 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-02 · tag F0637 — isolated
    Assess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) within 14 days for a resident placed on hospice care for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #18) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 26. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #18 dated 3/9/24, included diagnosis of non-Alzheimer's dementia. The assessment indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3, indicating severe cognitive impairment for decision making. Review of Resident #8's Clinical Physician Orders revealed an order for the resident to receive hospice services effective 4/4/24. On 4/30/24 at 3:41 PM, review of Resident #18's MDS list documented the status of a Significant Change started 4/18/24 and status of still in progress. Facility policy Resident Assessments revised November 2019 documented a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) is completed within 14 days of the interdisciplinary team determining that the resident meets the guidelines for decline and a SCSA…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-02 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — isolated
    Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on facility document review and staff interview the facility failed to provide Registered Nurse (RN) coverage eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. The facility reported a census of 26. Findings include: Review of facility's nursing schedule for 3/29/24 - 5/1/24 revealed no RN scheduled to work on 4/14/24. Interview on 5/01/24 at 4:30 PM, the Administrator confirmed the facility had no RN coverage in the building on 4/14/24 and stated the facility follows the federal regulations of RN coverage 8 hours a day and his expectation is for RN coverage 8 hours a day.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-02 · tag F0836 — isolated
    Ensure the facility is licensed under applicable State and local law and operates and provides services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards.
    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, facility document review, and staff interview, the facility failed to report a Veterans Affairs (VA) eligible resident to the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs (IDVA) within 30 days of admission for 1 of 10 residents (#6) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: On 4/30/24, review of the VA Eligibility list revealed Resident #6 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #6 dated 1/15/24 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 08 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of a fracture around the left knee prosthesis, acute respiratory failure, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The MDS indicated dependence with toileting, bathing, and dressing and required maximal assistance with oral and personal hygiene. The resident's Electronic Health Record (EHR) indicated the resident received Physical and Occupational Therapy (PT/OT) and listed…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    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 interview with residents and staff, record review and policy review the facility failed to keep residents safe from sexual exploitation for 1 of 5 residents reviewed. Resident #5 participated in mental health group sessions at the hospital three times a week. The hospital provided transportation to and from the sessions and the driver became intimate with Resident #5. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: According to the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] Resident #5 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 (moderate cognitive deficits) no behavioral symptoms. He was independent with hygiene, dressing, transfers and walking. Diagnosis included Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (enlargement of prostate glands), non-Alzheimer's Dementia and depression. The Care Plan dated 10/14/23, indicated that Resident #5 moved to the facility from his private residence due to a decline in his cognitive abilities and he was unable…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    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 record and policy review and interviews the facility failed to report potential abuse for 2 of 5 residents reviewed. Resident's #6 and #9 reported to staff that another resident had made sexual advances toward them. Staff failed to report these concerns to the proper state agency. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: 1) The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed that Resident #6 had a BIMS score of 15 (intact cognitive ability). The resident had no behavioral symptoms, was independent with transferring, hygiene and dressing. Her diagnosis included anxiety disorder, depression, diabetes mellitus and muscle weakness. The Care Plan updated on 2/29/24, showed that Resident #6 had a history of abuse and requested female care givers only. She was on antidepressant medication and had psychosocial wellbeing problems related to family discord, ineffective coping. Staff were directed to allow her time to answer question and to verbalize her feelings, perceptions and fears. Staff…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    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 interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to investigate injuries consistent with abuse for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #2). Resident #2 sustained a femur fracture and scattered bruising, the facility failed to investigate these injuries. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: According to the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #2 was unable to complete a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment (severe cognitive deficit). He was independent with sit to stand, sit to lying and toilet transfers. The Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] showed that he returned from a hospitalization, and was totally dependent on staff to assist with sit to stand, sit to lying and toileting transfers. Diagnosis for Resident #2 included; dementia, arthritis, diabetes, renal insufficiency and coronary artery disease. The Care Plan updated on 1/11/24 showed that Resident #2 was at risk for falls and had a history of falling. He required one…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to adequately monitor and intervene for 3 of 3 residents reviewed (Residents #2, #6 and #9). Resident #2 had fluctuating oxygen saturation, with supplemental oxygen as needed. Staff failed to assess the resident's oxygen status for a period of 4 days. Residents #6 and #9 reported to staff that a male resident made unwanted advances towards them. Staff failed to investigate and assess the residents. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: 1) According to the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #2 was unable to complete a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment (severe cognitive deficit). He was on oxygen therapy and totally dependent on staff to assist with sit to stand, sit to lying and toileting transfers. Diagnosis for Resident #2 included; dementia, arthritis, diabetes, renal insufficiency, pneumonia, and coronary artery disease. The Care Plan updated on 2/29/24 showed that…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    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, interview and record review the facility failed to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #2). On 2/7/24, staff sent Resident #2 to the emergency room due to abdominal pain, and an X-Ray exam revealed that the resident had a fracture to the right femur. The facility failed to investigate the injury of unknown origin. Staff transferred Resident #2 with the use of a mechanical lift, sit to stand. They kept the resident in the standing position on the lift while they cleaned his gluteal area of bowel movement (BM), and the resident became fatigued and had difficulty standing. The facility reported a census of 26 residents. Findings include: 1) According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #2 was unable to complete a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment (severe cognitive deficit). He was independent with sit to stand, sit to lying and toilet transfers. An MDS dated [DATE], showed that the resident returned from a hospitalization and had…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CARE INITIATIVES — 43 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.9+1.1 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.5+1.5 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 53.7+0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.7-0.7 vs chain
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
1 of 5Avoca Specialty CareAvoca, IA 1 of 5Correctionville Specialty CareCorrectionville, IA 1 of 5Crestview Specialty CareWest Branch, IA 1 of 5Heritage Specialty CareCedar Rapids, IA 1 of 5Kingsley Specialty CareKingsley, IA 1 of 5Parkridge Specialty CarePleasant Hill, IA 1 of 5Ravenwood Specialty CareWaterloo, IA 1 of 5Westwood Specialty CareSioux City, IA 2 of 5Chariton Specialty CareChariton, IA 2 of 5Creston Specialty CareCreston, IA 2 of 5Dubuque Specialty CareDubuque, IA 2 of 5Lantern Park Specialty CareCoralville, IA 2 of 5New London Specialty CareNew London, IA 2 of 5Northcrest Specialty CareWaterloo, IA 2 of 5Northern Mahaska Specialty CareOskaloosa, IA 2 of 5Pinnacle Specialty CareCedar Falls, IA 2 of 5Southridge Specialty CareMarshalltown, IA 2 of 5Stratford Specialty CareStratford, IA 3 of 5Atlantic Specialty CareAtlantic, IA 3 of 5Centerville Specialty CareCenterville, IA 3 of 5Cherokee Specialty CareCherokee, IA 3 of 5Eldora Specialty CareEldora, IA 3 of 5Manly Specialty CareManly, IA 3 of 5Montezuma Specialty CareMontezuma, IA 3 of 5Odebolt Specialty CareOdebolt, IA 3 of 5Panora Specialty CarePanora, IA 3 of 5Ridgewood Specialty CareOttumwa, IA 3 of 5Southern Hills Specialty CareOsceola, IA 3 of 5West Ridge Specialty CareKnoxville, IA 4 of 5Belle Plaine Specialty CareBelle Plaine, IA 4 of 5Corning Specialty CareCorning, IA 4 of 5Corydon Specialty CareCorydon, IA 4 of 5Dunlap Specialty CareDunlap, IA 4 of 5Laporte City Specialty CareLa Porte City, IA 4 of 5Lyon Specialty CareRock Rapids, IA 4 of 5Oakwood Specialty CareAlbia, IA 5 of 5Fonda Specialty CareFonda, IA 5 of 5Lamoni Specialty CareLamoni, IA 5 of 5Mechanicsville Specialty CareMechanicsville, IA 5 of 5Sibley Specialty CareSibley, IA

Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
CARE INITIATIVESOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 10/01/2009
COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST COMPANY, NAOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2025
BEAL, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/01/2020
BOWEN, LANEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2021
CAROTHERS, MARY JANEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
CHILDS, KEVINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 04/01/2023
CORLESS, PETERIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2025
KREIN, KEITHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
RUST, ELIZABETHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
STURM, DENISEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2021
UPMEYER, LINDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
DIXON, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/01/2016
DRAKE, EMILYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/04/2023
GILYARD, TANYAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/23/2025
KUHN, JERAMYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/25/2008
MCDYER, JESSICAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/22/2023
BOEVE, DESTINYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2024
GIJIMA, DESIREIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024
RINNER, MEGANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/02/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

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.

$2.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+1.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$242K
Related-party expense9% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 62%Medicare 6%Other / private 32%

This home reported $242K 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

$250per resident / day
operating cost
$7,604per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$254per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Iowa
$9,277/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,038/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,381/mo
Assisted living

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 165292. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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.

What to do next