Trinity Center at Luther Park
1555 Hull Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50316 · Non profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (515) 262-5639 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $162,205 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-23)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection 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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 2 to 1 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 | 24.3% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.3% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.2% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.5% | 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 | 7.1% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.5% | 16.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.6% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 32.0% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 27.4% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.0% | 73.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.6% | 20.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.0% | 13.2% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.09 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.64 | 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.
52.1% 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 69 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 79.5% 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 | 52.1%CMS range 41.2–62.8 | 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 | 10.4%CMS range 6.9–15.0 | 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 | 79.5% | 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 | 84.6% | 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 | 59.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 97.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.2% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 3.7–12.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.78 | 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 120 beds and averages 113.0 residents a day — about 94% 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.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.69 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.46 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.99 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-12-23 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, staff and Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) interviews, facility policy review, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. The facility failed to do the following; ensure staff followed proper infection control practices during resident's cares and transmission based precaution procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 by failing to follow facility policy and CDC guidelines, to test residents who had been exposed to other residents positive for COVID-19, separate COVID-19 positive residents from roommates, to wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE) and to properly handle contaminated linens for 20 of 20 residents reviewed (Resident #2, #6, #11, #12, #27, #32, #36, #42, #59, #68, #74, #75, #85, #91, #96, #97, #100, #118, #126, #127). The facilities failure to protect their residents from exposure to high risk infections put the residents at a serious likelihood of harm. The facility reported a census of 109 residents. The State Agency…
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 · E2025-12-23 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 failed to appropriately provide consistent and thorough assessments for COVID positive residents and residents exposed to COVID, for the ordered 10 days, also failed to complete a neurological assessment for a resident with an unwitness fall for 17 of 21 residents reviewed. (Resident #11, #12, #18, #27, #32, #36, #42, #59, #68, #74, #75, #85, #91, #96, #97, #100, #118) Facility reported a census of 109 residents. Findings include:1. Review of Resident #11's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed, resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] to a private room. A BIMS of 15 (cognitively intact), diagnoses of coronary artery disease, deep vein thrombosis, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and pleural effusion (excess fluid builds up in the space between the lungs and chest wall, restricting lung expansion, causing shortness of breath, chest pain, and cough). Resident #11 requires moderate assistance…
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 before2025-12-23 · 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 label food stored in the refrigerator, failed to properly thaw meat used for lunch meal service, and failed to discard delivery boxes. The facility reported a census of 109 residents.Findings include: On 12/15/25 at 8:35 AM, the following items were observed during kitchen tour:1) One (1) pack of frozen ham thawing in an aluminum pan full of standing water in the sink.2) Seven (7) packs of thawed ham in an aluminum pan of standing hot water.3) Three (3) flattened delivery boxes lying on a kettle (large machine used for making soups, etc)4) An unlabeled, clear, plastic container with sliced, white, oval items.5) An unlabeled, clear, plastic container with sliced, light green, disk shaped items.6) A unit refrigerator with a multicolored, cloth item with a resident label later identified as a coldpak. At 9:10 AM, Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) stated she did not know who placed the item in the refrigerator. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) informed the unit nurse that resident healthcare items cannot be…
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 · D2025-12-23 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure staff documented the non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to the administration of anti-anxiety medication for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #39). The facility reported a census of 109 residents.Findings include:A significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 had diagnoses of non-traumatic brain dysfunction, Alzheimer's disease, dementia and anxiety. The MDS revealed the resident had impaired short-term and long-term memory and severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS also indicated the resident had inattention and disorganized thinking present, and rejected care 4-6 days during the look-back period. The MDS indicated the resident took an antipsychotic medication. The Care Plan revised 2/25/25 revealed the resident required use of an antipsychotic medication due to behaviors of anxiety and aggression…
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 · D2025-12-23 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative in writing of a transfer to the hospital and a policy for bed hold including reserve bed payment for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident #3). The facility reported a census of 109 residents.Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #3 dated 11/01/25 indicated Resident #3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 05 out of 15 which indicated severely impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of kidney failure, non-Alzheimer's dementia, Alzheimer's disease, a hip fracture, and traumatic brain injury. It revealed the resident required setup assistance with eating, maximal assistance with toileting, toilet transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene, and was independent with oral hygiene and all other forms of mobility. The Care Plan revised 9/24/24 included impaired cognitive function/impaired thought processes related to unspecified dementia with confusion and directed staff to discuss concerns about…
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 · D2025-12-23 · 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 direct observation, clinical record review, staff interview, policy review and Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual the facility failed to ensure proper Minimum Data Set (MDS) coding by coding residents as having physical restraints when they did not have physical restraints present, and by not coding a residents mental illness when indicated for three of twenty-two residents reviewed for MDS assessments (Resident #4, #9, and #21). The facility reported a census of 109 residents. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident's #9 and #21, last completed on 09/06/2025 for Resident #9, and 09/20/2025 for Resident #21, indicate both residents had a physical restraint in the form of a bed rail present, as denoted in question P0100. The care plan for Resident #9, last updated 11/28/2025, documented the resident prefers to have side rails on their bed as it makes them feel safer. The care plan for Resident #21, last revised 12/03/2025, documented the resident prefers to have bed rails on their bed…
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 · D2025-12-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to use a gait belt while transferring a resident who required assistance with mobility for 1 of 22 residents (#103). The facility reported a census of 109 residents.Findings include: On 12/16/25 at 1:23 PM, Staff I, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) was observed watching a visitor attempt to transfer Resident #103 without assistance. When the resident began losing balance, Staff I assisted the visitor with transferring the resident from a recliner to his wheelchair without using the gait belt wrapped around her waist. On 12/16/25 at 1:52 PM, J, CNA stated gait belts should be used to transfer residents who are off balance, can't stand by themselves, or for safety issues. She stated staff uses a gait belt for Resident #103 except when his friend comes. His friend gets him out of the chair himself. On 12/16/25 at 2:01 PM, Staff K, Registered Nurse (RN) stated the resident walks by himself but gets up with assistance. She stated a gait belt should be used with residents who require assistance. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-31 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, and staff interviews the facility failed to complete a discharge summary and discharge plan for 1 resident (#113). The facility reported a census of 111 residents. Findings include: The Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed Resident #113 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for skilled services. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #113 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated completely intact cognition. The EHR included diagnoses of vertebral fractures (fractured back bones). It also documented she was independent with eating, required supervision with oral hygiene, and required maximum assistance with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) except upper body dressing. The EHR lacked discharge plan and discharge summary documentation. On 10/31/24 at 8:33 AM, the administrator stated the discharge plan and discharge summary were not completed due to the circumstances surrounding 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 before2024-10-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff used proper food handling procedures to prevent possible contamination of food during lunch service with food uncovered. The facility reported a census of 111 residents. Findings include: During an observation 10/30/24 at 12:15 PM, the steam table was transported from unit B1 to unit C1 with the sweet potatoes and peas uncovered and with the bread partially uncovered. This steam table was transported from the dining room in unit B1, down a resident hallway, out into the main area and then into unit C1, down resident hallway in unit C1 and into the dining room in unit C1. Meals were then served to residents in unit C1 from the steam table. During an interview 10/30/24 at 12:50 PM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), stated food should be covered during transportation in the hallways and in main areas, for infection control purposes. The CDM stated an expectation food is covered during transportation. During an interview 10/30/24 at 4:30 PM, the Administrator acknowledged an expectation food…
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 before2024-10-31 · 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, staff interview, clinical record review and policy review the facility failed to provide appropriate catheter and peri-care for 1 of 1 resident (#103) to prevent a urinary tract infection. The facility reported a census of 111 residents. Findings include: On 10/29/24 at 1:45 pm, Resident #103 stated he had a urine bag (indwelling catheter) but could not remember if he had taken an antibiotic. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #103 dated 8/06/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA- a brief blockage of blood flow to the brain that causes stroke-like symptoms), Cerebral Infarction (stroke caused by blocked blood flow to the brain), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and a history of Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs). The MDS indicated Resident #103 was independent with eating, required setup assistance with oral hygiene, and required moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, bathing, sit-to-stand…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-15 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, resident and staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to complete an incident report and notify the physician and resident's emergency contact/next of kin for a new bruise for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 115 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #1 dated 6/28/24, included diagnoses of Parkinson's (condition that deteriorates the brain) and Non-Alzheimer's. The MDS identified the resident was dependent on staff for toileting, dressing, and personal hygiene and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 12, which indicated mild cognitive impairment for decision making. Interview on 8/14/24 at 10:45 AM, the resident stated she had a bruise on her upper right arm that is getting better; that she had woke up one morning and found the bruise. The resident stated she reported it to staff and was not sure what caused the bruise. Resident's progress notes documented on 6/28/24 at 9:12 PM - New skin issue of bruise on right upper arm, 3.5 centimeters…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-15 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an alleged violation of abuse by a resident, by not interviewing staff regarding the allegation for one (Resident #5) of three residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 115 residents. Findings included: The Five Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #5 dated 1/14/24, included diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, and depression. The MDS indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14, which indicated no cognitive impairment for decision making. Review of resident's progress note dated 3/7/24 at 3:10 PM documented: This nurse brought resident to the bathroom and saw a bruise located on resident's right cheek. Resident became tearful and stated, I got the shit beat out of me. Resident then finished using the bathroom and this nurse brought resident to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) for further investigation. This nurse sat in the office with ADON while investigating. Resident appeared 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.
- No harm found · B2024-10-31 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to notify the Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of a resident transfer as required for 1 of 3 residents reviewed who were transferred from the facility (Resident #75). The facility reported a census of 111 residents. Findings include: Resident#75's Clinical Census Report documented that the resident had transferred from the facility on 3/30/24 to a hospital, and reentered the facility on 4/8/24. The clinical record lacked the documentation of notification to the LTC Ombudsman that the Resident #75 had transferred to the hospital. During an interview 10/31/24 at 1:10 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility did not report to the Ombudsman when the Resident #75 went to the hospital. The facility policy titled Admission, Transfer, Discharge revised 9/4/24 instructed the staff to notify the State Ombudsman of any/all facility-initiated discharges for assistance with transition and support of the resident and representative.
“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
$162,205 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $162,205 — penalty dated 2025-12-23
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | since 12/22/2016 |
| BLACKBURN, KELLEY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/30/2023 |
| HYLAND, KEITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/30/2023 |
| MILLER, DUANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| BRATVOLD, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2019 |
| KRAUSE, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/06/2021 |
| MAYS, TIRA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2018 |
| ALUVISIA, VIOLET | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/06/2018 |
| BALLESTEROS, EDUARDO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/12/2022 |
| NOWACHECK, DEBRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/29/2018 |
| OBEN, PATRICK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| QUIRK, LISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/11/2022 |
| REISINGER, JANET | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/10/2017 |
| SCHAMERHORN, BRITTNEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/04/2021 |
| WOOLSON, MARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/13/2026 |
| BRIGHTON CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| FORGE FINANCIAL & MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/31/2025 |
| FUNCTIONAL PATHWAYS OF TENNESSEE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| J EVANS NUTRITION CONSULTING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/30/2022 |
| KNORR ENTERPRISES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| KNORR FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| PREMIER SENIOR MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| SALTECH SYSTEMS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 23 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.
9 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 $900 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 165612. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-23, 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.