The Suites at Western Home Communities
5301 Caraway Lane, Cedar Falls, IA 50613 · Non profit - Corporation · 72 certified beds · (319) 277-2141 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 29.4% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.8% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.5% | 4.2% | 6.5% | better |
| 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 | 2.6% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.5% | 16.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.3% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.7% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.7% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.1% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.2% | 73.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.8% | 20.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.0% | 13.2% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.98 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.35 | 2.08 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
50.6% 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 150 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 49.2% 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 65 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 66% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 50.6%CMS range 45.2–58.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.4%CMS range 6.8–14.0 | 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 | 49.2% | 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 | 35.4% | 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 | 43.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 92.1% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 5.8%CMS range 3.2–11.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.65 | 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 72 beds and averages 68.9 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 3 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 4.56 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.10 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 4.34 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.65 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.91 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · 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 clinical record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) practices during a routine transfer for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcer (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 70.Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #4 had one unstageable pressure injury presenting as a deep tissue injury that was not present on admission.The Care Plan initiated on 3/15/24 indicated that Resident #4 required EBP related to wounds. It directed staff to wear gloves and gown for transferring the resident. It also indicated that he had an actual skin impairment related to the left heel and directed staff to provide wound care per Medical Doctor (MD) orders.The Physician's Order dated 11/18/25 indicated to use EBP due to wound to the left heel every shift. In another order dated 9/24/25 it directed staff to apply Betadine topically to the left heel ulcer at bedtime.The Electronic Health…
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 · D2025-02-06 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long Term Care (LTC) Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment within 14 days of hospice election for 2 of 2 residents reviewed on hospice services (Residents #45 and #4). The facility reported a census of 71 residents. Findings include: 1. A Progress Note dated 5/30/24 at 5:02 PM documented Resident #45 admitted to hospice care services. A Hospice Benefit Election Statement signed by Resident #45's family member documented the start of service date as 5/30/24. The Care Plan Focus revised 6/14/24 reflected Resident #45 started hospice care on 5/30/24. The SCSA MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #45 with long/short term memory impairment and moderately impaired (required cues) decision making ability. The MDS listed diagnoses of metabolic…
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 · D2025-02-06 · 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 observation, clinical record review, document review, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long Term Care (LTC) Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, and staff interview the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment accurately reflected the care status of 4 out of 5 residents reviewed (Residents #33, #45, #53, and #70). The MDS failed to accurately reflect Resident #33's fall with major injury, Resident #45 received hospice services, Resident #53's use of restraints, and Resident #70 discharged home and not to the hospital. The facility identified a censes of 71 residents. Findings include: 1. The Incident Note dated 9/5/24 at 3:30 PM documented by Staff F, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), indicated they heard Resident #33 calling out for help and she entered her apartment. Resident #33 laid on the bathroom floor with her hand placed under her buttocks, wearing gripper socks, and her walker next to her. Resident #33 walked to the bathroom…
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 · Dcited before2025-02-06 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, and staff interview the facility failed to follow a physician order to place washcloths in the hands of 1 of 1 resident reviewed for range of motion (ROM) (Resident #45). The facility identified a census of 71 residents. Findings include: Resident #45's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] listed Resident #45 as rarely/never understood with long- and short-term memory impairment. Resident #45 had an upper extremity (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand) functional impairment on both sides. The MDS reflected Resident #45 depended upon staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS included diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (a change in how your brain works due to an underlying condition. It can cause confusion, memory loss and loss of consciousness. You may make a full recovery if you receive a diagnosis and treatment quickly, but permanent brain damage is possible), stroke, Alzheimer's dementia and non Alzheimer's dementia. The MDS documented Resident #45…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-29 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure 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
Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to serve meals in a therapeutic form necessary to meet residents' needs. The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #59 dated 12/22/23 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses including: stroke, traumatic brain dysfunction (occurs as a result of a severe injury to the head with immediate or delayed symptoms which may include confusion, blurry vision, and concentration difficulty), traumatic spinal cord dysfunction (a spinal cord injury which may cause a loss of strength, sensation, and function below the site of the injury), and progressive neurological conditions (continued decline in functioning). The Resident's Care Plan, revised 10/06/23, contained interventions including: staff to follow Speech Therapy (ST) progress and recommendations; the resident is to have their diet as (physician) ordered; all foods to be cut into small bites or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-29 · 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 observation, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to serve meals under sanitary conditions and at safe temperatures to prevent food-borne illness. The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include: During an observation of the noon meal on 2/27/24 from 11:45 AM to 12:55 PM Staff A, Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) observed setting the serving scoops face down on the counter top without a barrier. Staff A then placed the scoops into the food that was served out to multiple residents. Staff A placed a blender lid face down directly onto the counter top and then used the blender to grind food for two residents before serving them. Staff A placed the serving tongs directly on the dirty stovetop surface multiple times, then used the tongs to plate egg rolls for multiple residents. Pre-meal temperatures taken at 12:05 PM revealed the ground beef and broccoli heated to 120.7 degrees Fahrenheit (F) prior to meal service without a reheat to 165 degrees performed. Staff A plated the ground beef and broccoli and served it out at the noon meal to multiple…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to implement care planned interventions for toileting and to prevent falls for 2 of 20 sampled residents (#3 and #19). The facility identified a census of 61 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #19's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed Resident #19 with a long/short term memory impairment and severely impaired daily decision-making ability. The MDS documented Resident #19 as dependent upon staff for toileting hygiene (the ability to maintain perineal hygiene, adjust clothes before and after voiding or having a bowel movement). The MDS documented Resident #19 as always incontinent of urine and frequently incontinent of bowel. The MDS listed diagnoses of unspecified dementia, end stage renal disease, and muscle weakness. The Care Plan, revised 1/25/24, documented a focus problem of bladder incontinence and directed the staff to: a. Encourage/assist to void at least routinely and more often…
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 · Dcited before2024-02-29 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 interview the facility failed to follow standards of practice when staff failed to observe residents swallowed their medication per facility policy, per physician orders, and standard of practice for 2 of 2 sampled residents (#13 and #39). The facility identified a census of 61 residents. Findings include: Resident #13's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11/15 indicating mild cognitive impairment. The MDS documented Resident #13 independent with eating with a diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy (metabolic encephalopathies comprise a series of neurological disorders not caused by primary structural abnormalities; rather, they result from systemic illness, such as diabetes, liver disease, renal failure, and heart failure). The Care Plan revised 2/19/24 lacked documentation Resident #13 could self-administer his own medications. A Review of the 2/28/24 Physician Order…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-29 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 interview, the facility failed to ensure resident with limited range of motion (ROM) received restorative exercises as planned for 1 of 1 resident sampled (Resident #32). The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include: Resident #32's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8/15 indicating a mild cognitive impairment. The MDS detailed the Resident had a lower body impairment on both sides of the body and a diagnosis of muscle weakness and Parkinsonism (Parkinsonism is a term used to describe a collection of movement symptoms associated with several conditions - including Parkinson's disease (PD). These symptoms include slow movements along with stiffness, walking and balance issues and/or tremors). The MDS documented Resident #32 received 54 minutes of physical therapy one time in the seven-day look-back period. The Care Plan revised 1/08/24 directed staff to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-29 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, and staff interviews the facility failed to keep resident respiratory equipment in sanitary condition for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #5 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status of 14/15 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses including: cancer, heart failure, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and respiratory failure. The Resident's Care Plan, revised 1/23/24, detailed Resident #5 required the use of oxygen due to heart failure and contained an intervention to provide oxygen therapy via nasal canula/mask. Physician Orders dated 1/23/24 instructed the resident to be on oxygen at 3 liters continuous and for the tubing to be changed and dated weekly. During observations on 2/26/24 at 10:45 AM and on 2/29/24 at 8:28 AM the filter on the resident's oxygen concentrator was found to be matted…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-29 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, document review, policy review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to answer call lights within 15 minutes for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #5 and #44). The facility identified a census of 61 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #44's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11/15 indicating mild cognitive impairment. The MDS documented Resident #44 as dependent upon staff for toileting hygiene (the ability to maintain perineal hygiene, adjust clothes before and after voiding or having a bowel movement); dependent upon staff for lower body dressing (the ability to dress and undress below the waist, including fasteners; does not include footwear) and required substantial to maximal assist with toilet transfers (the ability to get on and off a toilet or commode). The MDS listed diagnoses of Dystonia (a disorder that causes the muscles to contract involuntarily), Parkinsonism (unspecified),…
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.
“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 WESTERN HOME COMMUNITIES — 6 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 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 4.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIRST INTERSTATE BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | since 01/01/2025 |
| SANNES, AARON | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/15/2025 |
| SCHROEDER, HEATHER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/15/2025 |
| SUSONG, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/15/2025 |
| BROCKELSBY, SHERI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/18/2018 |
| FRANKHAUSER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2021 |
| HANSEN, KRIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| WESTERN HOME SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| AMES, TRENTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/06/2021 |
| DREYER, CHERYL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/12/2021 |
| FOX, LARRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2022 |
| GARCIA, JENNY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/13/2023 |
| GIBBS, STACY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/26/2018 |
| MORSE, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2021 |
| TJADEN, TABITHA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/21/2019 |
| BRIGHTON CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/25/2021 |
| GRAPE TREE MEDICAL STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2023 |
| HELPING HANDS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2023 |
| LOTUS ABOVE & BEYOND HEALTHCARE STAFFING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2023 |
| RELIANT CARE PHARMACY SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/28/2023 |
| SUGAR CREEK HEALTH MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2022 |
| TECH OF AGES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| AGER, WENDY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| EVANS, ANGELA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| HARRIS, JERRY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| MCCORMICK, DARRELL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| O'LEARY, PATRICK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 34 rows in the source record cover these 28 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
10 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 $822K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165622. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-26, 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.