Colonial Manor of Elma
407 9th Street, Elma, IA 50628 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 40 certified beds · (641) 393-2134 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Apr 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $44,768 in federal fines (most recent 2026-04-09)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (62%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 2 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 | 21.8% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.7% | 4.6% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.4% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 28.6% | 16.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.8% | 20.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 36.2% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.8% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 36.8% | 20.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.6% | 13.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.96 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.43 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
50.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 39 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.5% 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 22 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 66% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 50.6%CMS range 36.4–64.0 | 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 | 10.2%CMS range 6.5–15.4 | 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 | 54.5% | 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 | 45.5% | 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 | 36.4% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.70 | 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 40 beds and averages 34.4 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 6 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 3.56 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.46 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 3.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.73 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.65 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 62% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-04-09 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observations, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure one of six residents reviewed remained free from a resident to resident physical altercation when a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a known history of aggressive behaviors (Resident #6) hit another resident (Resident #2). Three of six residents reviewed experienced fear from the Resident #6's aggressive behavior (Resident #2, Resident #4, and Resident #5). Resident #2 experienced increased anxiety, social isolation, a decline in nutritional intake, and fear following the incident. Resident #4 and Resident #5 expressed fear of Resident #6 and reported decreased activity participation due to Resident #6's behaviors. The facility reported a census of 32 residents.Findings include:1.Resident #6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-12-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, document review, policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a full assessment for 1 of 4 residents sampled for falls (Resident #2). Resident #2 fell on [DATE] at 9:50 PM. Resident #2 exhibited left hip pain and an externally rotated left leg. Staff A, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) failed to assess the resident and assisted Resident #2 from the floor to standing position where Resident #2 could not bear weight on his left leg. Staff A called for help and Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) assisted her to transfer Resident #2 into a wheelchair and then they transferred him to lay in bed. Resident #2 was transferred to the emergency room department on 10/13/24. Resident #2 was diagnosed with a left hip fracture on 10/14/24. The facility mitigated the situation through staff education on falls from 10/14/24 - 10/17/24 for nursing staff. The facility identified a census of 30 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data…
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 · D2026-02-19 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 protect 1 of 2 resident's rights to be free from misappropriation of their opioid pain medication patches (fentanyl) (an extremely potent, synthetic (lab-made) opioid used for pain) (Resident #42). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #42 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS included diagnoses of low back pain, age related osteoporosis, and limitation of activities due to disability. The MDS reflected she took an opioid medication during the lookback period.Resident #42's Order Summary Report signed by her doctor on 10/24/25 included an order for a fentanyl patch 25 milligrams (mg) with a start date of 10/1/25. Resident #42's Orders in her Electronic Health Record (EHR) included an order for a fentanyl patch 25 mg with a start date of 10/1/25 and an end date of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-19 · 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 clinical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to document non-pharmacological interventions prior to administering anti-anxiety medication for anxiety and/or restlessness for 1 of 1 resident sampled (Resident #35). The facility identified a census of 36.Findings include:Resident #35's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00, indicating a severe cognitive loss. The MDS listed diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia and anxiety. The MDS reflected Resident #35 used an anti-anxiety medication during the lookback period. An Order Summary Report signed by the Provider on 12/11/25 documented an order dated 11/7/25 for lorazepam (anti-anxiety, psychotropic medication) oral tablet 0.5 milligrams (MG), give 0.5 tablet by mouth every 2 hours as needed (PRN) for anxiety/restlessness.The Care Plan Focus dated 2/11/25 indicated Resident #35 utilized psychotropic medication in the category of anti-anxiety medication…
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 · D2026-02-19 · 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 record review and staff interviews the facility failed to accurately code 2 of 2 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for residents with a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II outcome (a formal determination that confirms if an individual with suspected serious mental illness or intellectual disability requires Medicaid-certified nursing facility care and defines their need for specialized services) (Resident #4 and #32). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include:1. Resident #4's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified she didn't have a state level II PASRR serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or related condition. The MDS documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS included diagnoses of anxiety, depression, bipolar, and schizophrenia. Resident #4's PASRR notice of nursing facility approval dated 12/2/15 reflected she met the criteria for mental illness as defined by PASRR. In an…
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 · D2026-02-19 · 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 record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to provided 1 of 2 residents with specialized services as the resident's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) directs (Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: Resident #4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15, indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS included diagnoses of anxiety, depression, bipolar, and schizophrenia. Resident #4's PASRR dated 12/2/15 directed she required specialized services of a behavior management plan for addressing behaviors of anxiety/worry, verbal aggression, abrasiveness/irritable behaviors and inappropriate communication of anger. Review of Resident #4 Care Plan on 2/17/16 lacked a behavior management plan. In an interview on 2/19/26 at 2:06 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) reported she didn't have a behavior management plan for Resident #4.In an e-mail correspondence with 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 · D2026-02-19 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review, resident, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control prevention and practices to prevent cross contamination when providing incontinent cares. The observation revealed the staff failed to remove soiled gloves, perform hand hygiene, and not touch a clean brief with soiled gloves for 1 of 2 residents observed (Resident #7). The facility identified a census of 36 residents.Findings include:Resident #7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 13, indicating intact cognition. Resident #7 required partial/moderate assistance (Helper does less than half the effort. Helper lifts, holds, or supports trunk or limbs, but provides less than half the effort.) with lower body dressing and toileting hygiene. The MDS documented she is not on a toileting program and is frequently incontinent for bowel and bladder. The MDS included diagnoses of renal (kidney) failure, diabetes mellitus,…
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 · D2026-02-19 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 obtain daily weights and notify the Doctor of a 3-pound (lb.) weight gain is identified in a day as the Doctor ordered for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for nutrition (Resident #6). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #6 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 6, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses of aphasia (difficulty swallowing), metabolic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction caused by underlying systemic diseases, toxic exposure, or electrolyte imbalances), and acute respiratory failure. Review of Resident #6 Order Summary Report signed by his doctor on 11/25/25 documented an order to obtain daily weights and notify the doctor of weight greater than 3 lb. in a day and 5 lb. in a week starting 9/12/25Review of Resident #6 Weights in his Electronic Health Record (EHR) from 11/20/25 to 2/18/25…
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 before2026-02-19 · 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 observation, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control prevention and practices to prevent touching of medication with bare hands or dirty gloves during medication administration for 3 of 5 residents observed (Residents #27, #1, and #11). The facility identified a census of 36 residents.Findings include:Observation completed during the Medication Administration Task revealed the following:A. On 2/19/26 at 7:07 AM Staff B, Certified Medication Aide (CMA), voiced she planned to give Resident #27 his medications. Staff B without performing hand hygiene applied gloves, obtained her keys, opened the double lock narcotic drawer, touched the computer mouse with her right gloved hand to check the physician order. Staff B touched multiple resident medication cards in the narcotic drawer, retrieved Resident #27's Methadone (narcotic medication) card, punched the pill into her right gloved hand, and placed it into the medication cup. Staff B administered the medication to Resident #27.B. On 2/19/26 at 7:14 AM Staff B, opened the drawers on 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 · D2025-08-28 · 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 record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to implement a Care Plan chair alarm intervention for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls (Resident #3). The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings Include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #3 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 2 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented the need for substantial/maximal assistance (staff did more than half the effort) for transfers and walking up to 50 feet. The MDS also documented diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, respiratory failure, and adult failure to thrive.The Care Plan created 2/18/25 revealed, Resident is at risk for falls. The Intervention initiated 2/24/25 and created on 3/6/25 revealed, Chair alarm placed to alert staff when I am self transferring. Review of the Witness Statement for Staff A License Practical Nurse (LPN) dated 4/30/25 at 11:45 AM documented on 4/25/25 she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her 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, policy review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat a resident with dignity and respect for 1 of 3 residents sampled (Resident #4). The facility identified a census of 30 residents. Findings include: Resident #4 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 indicating intact cognition. During an interview on 2/11/25 at 4:01 PM Resident #4 reported Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) came into her room during the night and started mouthing off yelling Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), that fucking fat ass he doesn't do anything, repeatedly. He sits on his butt all night and then goes outside to smoke every two hours. Then Staff B left the room. Resident #4 voiced Staff B is rude at times and she doesn't feel that Staff B should be talking to her about other employees or residents. She is always complaining how she can't take care of Resident #27 because she doesn't want…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-13 · 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 observation, policy review, clinical record review, and staff interview, the facility failed to utilize appropriate EBP per the CDC during the provision of catheter care to minimize the risk of cross contamination that may lead to the spread of multi-drug resistant organisms for 3 of 3 residents sampled (Residents #5, #4, and #10). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #5 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 09 out of 15 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. It documented Resident #5 had diagnoses of renal insufficiency, neurogenic bladder, and Cerebral Palsy. The MDS further documented Resident #5 utilized an indwelling catheter for a diagnosis of neurogenic bladder. A 8/26/23 review of Resident #5 Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR) listed a Physician Order for a 16 French (size) Foley catheter to be continued. The Care Plan with an undated focus date directed Resident #5 required…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-02 · tag F0801 — patternEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on facility record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the facility's Dietary Service Manager had the required qualifications in the absence of a full-time dietician. The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: During an interview on 4/29/24 at 9;50 AM, the Dietary Manager reported the facility is working on getting her enrolled in the dietary manager classes. During an interview on 4/30/24 at 10:42 AM, the Consultant Dietician reported the Dietary Manager is not certified but currently in the course. She reported when she is in the building it varies when she comes but reviews the residents at least once a week. Review of the Dietary Manager's employee file lacked documentation of a certificate of completion of the Dietary Manager courses.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-02 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #17). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Finding include: Resident #17 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating intact cognition. The MDS include diagnoses of benign prostatic hyperplasia, anxiety, and hypertension Review of Resident #17's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed a Physician Order for referral to Urology on 1/22/24. Review of the Progress Notes lacked documentation of an appointment being made or call out to make the appointment. During an interview on 5/01/24 at 11:12 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported there was no documentation of any call to Urology nor an appointment scheduled to see Urology for Resident #17. She reported she talked with the nurse who noted the order and was not sure why it was not done. The DON reported she expected staff to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-02 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments were done for 1 of 2 residents reviewed to determine if she remained at baseline or had a decline (Resident #15). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented Resident #15 had impairment on both sides of her upper and lower extremities. Review of Resident #15's Care Plan revealed this resident was not on a restorative care program. On 4/29/24 at 11:30 a.m., Resident #15 was observed laying in her bed. On 4/29/24 at 1:02 p.m., Resident #15 was up and dressed sitting in the room recliner, yelling out to lay down in bed for 8 minutes. No call light on, just periodically yelling for help. Staff went in at this time and placed a gait belt on the resident and reported they would assist her to lay down. On 5/1/24 at 1:34 p.m., Resident #15 was sitting in her recliner, eyes were closed. She didn't respond to the knock at the door. Door was open, she…
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 · B2025-02-13 · tag F0637 — patternAssess 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, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care (LTC) Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual review, and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change Status Assessment (SCSA) Minimum Data Set (MDS) within 14 days of hospice election for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for hospice care (Resident #23). The facility reported a census of 30 residents. Findings include: Resident #23 SCSA MDS dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 indicating severe cognitive loss. The MDS documented Resident #23 as dependent upon staff to provide for her activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS listed diagnoses of cancer, end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, and Non-Alzheimer's Dementia. The MDS lacked documentation Resident #23 received hospice care services. A Hospice Election Statement and Hospice admission Consent Form signed by Resident #23 family representative showed the family signed…
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
$44,768 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $36,750 — penalty dated 2026-04-09
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-12-05
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LEGACY HEALTHCARE — 89 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
The other 88 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 88; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| SHABAT, MENACHEM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| LEGACY HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| ANDERA, CALEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| BEASLEY, KARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| BEHOUNEK, LINSEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| BORCHERDING, JENNY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| BURKEN, SHERI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| DEFORD, COLIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2025 |
| FRIEDENBERG, LAURA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| HEDBERG, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| HEYING, LARINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| HOUSTON, MINDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| JAEGER, KRYSTLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| LARSON, MELISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| MCCLURE, DOROTHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| MYHRE, LACEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| OTTERBECK, PATRICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| RAJCHENBACH, CHAIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| SHEAR, KILEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| VAN VEGHEL, ELIZABETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| WIERSCHEM, BOBBIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| FRIEDMAN, BRIAN | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/03/2012 |
| RAJCHENBACH, AVRUM | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/28/2008 |
| RAJCHENBACH, RIVKA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 04/28/2008 |
| SHABAT, AHUVA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/03/2012 |
| CASCADE CAPITAL HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| CASCADE CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| CCG GORGONA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GORGONA HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GORGONA PROPCO HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| GORGONA SUB HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| MN8 RH HOLDCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 32 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.
8 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 $467K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 165386. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-19, 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.