Iowa Jewish Senior Life Center
900 Polk Boulevard, Des Moines, IA 50312 · Non profit - Corporation · 46 certified beds · (515) 255-5433 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.1% | 17.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.7% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.7% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.4% | 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 | 17.1% | 16.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.2% | 20.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.8% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.6% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.4% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 41.4% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.7% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.2% | 73.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.1% | 20.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.4% | 13.2% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.19 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.33 | 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.
51.3% 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 98 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.1% 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 39 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 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 51.3%CMS range 43.2–59.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.3–15.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 64.1% | 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 | 56.4% | 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 | 56.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 2.2% | 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 | 6.2%CMS range 3.1–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.77 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 46 beds and averages 39.4 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.12 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.58 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.05 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, facility record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure sanitary conditions in the main kitchen and failed to properly sanitize the dining room tables in one of the two facility dining rooms used by the residents for their mealtimes. These failures posed the risk of food borne illness to the residents receiving food from the kitchen and eating in the main dining room. The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: During an interview on 3/31/26 at 12:51 p.m. with the Dietary Manager, he revealed he had been promoted to the Dietary Manager position three months ago. When asked regarding the sanitizing solution used to clean and sanitize surfaces and equipment in the kitchen and how staff test the sanitizing solution for proper chemical sanitization, he provided a small plastic container of a roll of chemical sanitizer test strips. The plastic container was without a label and he stated he was not sure where the product label…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility staff failed to perform appropriate hand hygiene with preparation, and administration of medication to four of four residents observed for medication administration (Resident #4, #17, #24, and #27). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: During a continuous observation on 4/1/26 from 7:28 a.m. to 8:25 a.m. with Staff D, Certified Medication Aide (CMA), failed to clean and sanitize her hands prior to preparing thirteen medications for Resident #4. Staff D then knocked on Resident #4's room door and gave Resident #4 her medication cup filled with twelve of those oral medications, an oral inhaler medication, and a glass of water. After Resident #4 took her medications, Staff D returned to the medication cart and documented the resident's medication administration in the facility's electronic medical record (EMR) and documented the narcotic medication given in the narcotic binder located on the medication cart. Continued observation; Staff D, CMA failed to clean and sanitize her…
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 · D2026-04-02 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure code status between the Iowa Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (IPOST), the electronic health record (EHR) and the Care Plan were congruent for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for advanced directives (Resident #46). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 6 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the IPOST dated [DATE] revealed Resident #46 had an order for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) signed by the physician and the resident's responsible party. Review of the EHR for Resident #46 revealed a physician's order with revision date of [DATE] documented as follows; CPR; limited additional interventions; no artificial nutrition by tube. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #46 with a focus area of advanced directives initiated [DATE] and…
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 · D2026-04-02 · 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 clinical record review, staff interview and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to complete a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment after a resident's hospice level of care was discontinued for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for change of condition (Resident #25). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: The census in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed on 9/24/25 Resident #25 transitioned from hospice private care to private-pay status. Review of Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (ABN) dated 9/22/25 revealed hospice services for Resident #25 would end 9/24/25. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 was not receiving hospice services. Review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #25 was not receiving hospice services. Review of the MDS tracking schedule for Resident #25 lacked a significant change assessment following the discontinuation of hospice services. During an interview…
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 · D2026-04-02 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview and Maximus Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) policies and procedures, the facility failed to submit a Level II PASRR evaluation for 1 of 1 residents reviewed with a new mental health diagnosis (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: A Level 1 PASRR screening completed by a local hospital prior to admission dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 had a diagnosis of depression/depressive disorder and a Level II evaluation was not required. The Level 1 PASRR evaluation lacked additional mental health diagnoses and revealed if new information refuted the findings, a new screen must be submitted. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #4 revealed a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The MDS further revealed the resident received antidepressant and antianxiety medication during the 7 day look back period. The Care Plan initiated [DATE] indicated Resident #4 had a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-13 · 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, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices to reduce the risk of contamination and food-borne illness during meal service. The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: On 3/11/25 the facility lunch menu included the following: lemon scallopini with pasta seasoned peas breadstick fresh fruit cup funfetti blondie In an observation on 3/11/25 starting at 11:45 AM during the lunch meal service, Staff J, Cook, used gloved hands to serve the meal and only changed his gloves and performed hand hygiene one time throughout the entire meal service. Staff J touched plates, utensils, refrigerators, lids, and transportation carts with gloved hands during the service. He further touched the seasoned peas on each plate he prepared with gloved hands to keep them from rolling around the plate, used his gloved hands to get parsley from a bowl to sprinkle on top of the scallopini, and touched the spaghetti with his gloved hands to remove dark overcooked pasta from the residents plates or pasta that was…
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 · D2025-03-13 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observations, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2 of 16 residents sampled (Residents #3 and #32). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment tool dated 1/23/25 revealed Resident #3 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease and diabetes. The MDS recorded the resident took an antibiotic. The Order Summary revealed Resident #3 on droplet precautions since 3/5/25. The Progress Notes revealed the following: a. On 3/5/25 at 10:59 AM, the resident tested positive for RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) (infection of the lungs and respiratory tract) on 3/5/25 and placed on droplet isolation. b. On 3/12/25 at 10:41 AM, resident continues on droplet precautions. The Care Plan lacked information or directives for staff to follow current policy and protocol guidelines related to RSV and droplet precautions. 2. The MDS assessment 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility staff failed to assess and document an injury of unknown origin and perform a skin assessment for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for skin injuries (Resident #33). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] reveals Resident #33 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and muscle weakness. The MDS recorded the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0, indicating severely impaired cognition. The resident also had inattention, disorganized thinking, and wandered daily. The MDS documented the resident had no falls and no skin issues. The MDS indicated the resident had dependence on staff for toileting, bathing, and transfers, and required substantial to maximum assistance for bed mobility. The Care Plan revised 2/9/25 revealed the resident required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) related to dementia and confusion. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-13 · 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, facility policy review, and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to follow infection control practices for three of three residents on droplet precautions (Resident # 3, #30, and #32) and prevent the potential spread of infection to other residents and staff. The facility staff also failed to handle soiled linens to prevent the potential spread of infection for 1 of 2 nursing units. The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment tool dated 1/23/25 revealed Resident #3 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease and diabetes. The MDS indicated the resident required supervision and touching assistance for eating. The MDS recorded the resident took an antibiotic. The Care Plan lacked information or directives for staff to follow current policy and protocol guidelines related to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (a respiratory infection) and droplet precautions. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · 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
Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to meet professional standards by not observing a resident take their medications for 1of 8 residents (Resident #18) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: A Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #18, dated 3/12/24, included diagnoses of heart failure, anxiety, and depression. The MDS documented the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. Observation on 4/15/24 at 12:05 PM, resident in room and holding medication cup with several pills in the cup. Resident stated they always leave them for me, they know I will take them as they are good for me. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record dated 4/1/24 - 4/30/24, documented the following medications ordered and administered at noon: a. ascorbic acid (supplement) b. aspirin c. buspirone (anti-anxiety) d. cholecalciferol (supplement) e. ditiazem (high blood pressure) f. duloxetine (anti-depressant) g. ferrous gluconate (iron supplement) h. furosemide…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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, family and staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to prevent a significant medication error for 1 of 11 residents reviewed (Resident #155). The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings Include: The Baseline Care Plan of Resident #155 reflected a date of 4/10/24. The Care Plan documented the resident unable to easily communicate with staff, and to be vision and hearing impaired. The Admit/Readmit Summary, dated 4/10/24 at 7:35 pm, documented the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE], was oriented to self and to place, not to time. The Summary also documented the resident to have moderately impaired vision and moderate difficulty hearing. The Health Status Note, dated 4/13/24 at 7:20 am, documented the resident to be very confused and anxious and not able to follow direction. The Health Status Note, dated 4/13/24 at 11:22 am, documented Resident #155 was in a wheelchair in the dining room when approached by a medication aide and called by a name…
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 before2024-04-18 · 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
Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain infection control standards due to lack of hand hygiene when providing cares and assisting residents to dine for 2 of 23 residents (Resident #15, and Resident #24). The facility reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: 1. On 4/15/24 at 12:18 pm, dining room observation began for the 200 and 300 hallway of the facility. On 4/15/24 at 12:26 pm, Staff A, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) sat down at a table wearing single use disposable gloves. Resident #15 was to her right and Resident #24 was to her left. Staff A provided set up assistance to Resident #24, removing covers from food and cutting up food. On 4/15/24 at 12:33 pm, Staff A stood up, keeping her gloves on, walked across the dining room to speak to a dietary staff member and then returned to the table. Using her left hand, she picked up the built up silverware for Resident #15 and began to feed him. She alternated, using her right hand to offer assistance to Resident #24. After alternating between…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-03-13 · tag F0623 — patternProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the State Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for transfer out of the facility (Resident #19). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: Review of the Census list for Resident #19 revealed the resident's status as on hospital leave on 11/6/24 and returned to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 re-admitted to the facility on this date from the hospital. The Notice of Transfer Form to LTC Ombudsman for the facility for November 2024 lacked documentation of Resident #19 being sent to the hospital on [DATE]. In an interview on 3/12/25 at 11:25 AM, Staff K, Accounting Manager and Staff L, admission Coordinator, reported they had been running the report to send to the LTC Ombudsman monthly off of a report generated from their electronic health records (PCC) and it appeared it had not been capturing the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BERNSTEIN, GLORIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2017 |
| MEYER, ANGELA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/26/2025 |
| MOCK, BEATA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/18/2014 |
| OXLEY, POLLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2020 |
| RABANG, LAZARO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.
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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 165006. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-02, 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.