Kennybrook Village
200 SW Brookside Drive, Grimes, IA 50111 · For profit - Individual · 40 certified beds · (515) 369-3900 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 15.8% | 17.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.1% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.3% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.5% | 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 | 8.4% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.4% | 16.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.0% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.4% | 25.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.7% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 73.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.8% | 20.9% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.0% | 13.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.05 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.34 | 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.
53.9% 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 51 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 71.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 45 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 41% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 53.9%CMS range 44.3–66.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 6.0–13.8 | 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 | 71.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 73.3% | 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 | 51.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 83.3% | 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 | 1.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.7%CMS range 3.0–10.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.69 | 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 39.0 residents a day — about 98% occupied, or roughly 1 bed typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.54 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.89 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.76 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.91 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-22 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 serve food within appropriate temperature ranges for one of one meals observed. The facility reported a resident census of 39.Findings include:On 1/21/26 at 12:05 PM, a lunch food check revealed the following preservice temperatures:Chicken parmesan - 142.3 deg FSpaghetti noodles - 149 deg FVegetables - 177 deg FBread - 153.4 deg FSpaghetti sauce - 173.6 deg FBeef pot pie - 161 deg FChicken noodle soup - 196 deg FMechanical soft (MS) chicken parmesan - 159.1 deg FMechanical soft (MS) beef pot pie - 173 deg FPureed chicken parmesan - 189 deg FPureed noodles - 175.8 deg FPureed bread - 179 deg FPureed vegetables - 154.5 deg FAt 1:06 PM, the food temperatures revealed the MS chicken parmesan temperature was 125.2 deg F and the Pureed chicken parmesan temperature was 126.3 deg F which indicated they did not maintain a safe temperature of at least 135 deg F throughout lunch service. All other food items' post-service temperatures exceeded 135 deg F.At 1:10 PM, the Dietician stated the MS and pureed foods are…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-22 · 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 maintain sanitary practices by touching food with contaminated, gloved hands during food service for one of one meal services observed. The facility reported a census of 39 residents.Findings include:On 1/20/2026 at 11:17 AM, a continuous meal service observation revealed Staff A, Culinary Aide (CA) placed his right oven mitt covered thumb inside the pan of peas and directly touched the food.At 11:34 AM, Staff A put on gloves, packed up a food thermometer, grabbed the temperature logbook, placed them both on the back counter, and returned to serving resident food. During service, he grabbed Tostitos chips with the same gloved hands and put them on a resident's plate.At 11:46 AM, Staff B, CA put on gloves, handled plates, ladles, and scoops then returned to serving resident food. During food service, she grabbed Tostitos chips with the same gloved hands and put them on a resident's plate. She did it four (4) times.At 11:15 AM, Staff A stated he received Infection Prevention training upon hire in March…
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 · D2026-01-22 · 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, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to maintain infection control practices for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #35 and Resident #4). The facility failed to ensure use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when required for Resident #35 and failed to perform hand hygiene and infection control practices during wound care for Resident #4. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: 1.The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #35, dated 12/31/2025, included diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia and pressure- induced damage of sacral region (buttocks). The MDS identified the resident was dependent on staff for transfers. The MDS identified the resident had a Stage 2 pressure ulcer (partial thickness loss of skin presenting as a shallow open ulcer). The MDS indicated the resident had a BIMS score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The Care Plan with initiated date of 10/24/25 for Resident#35 documented a Deep Tissue…
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 · F2025-01-09 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interview, review of the facility's Provider History Profile reports, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an effective QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement) process to address previously identified quality deficiencies. This resulted in multiple repeat deficiencies identified on the facility's current recertification and complaint survey. The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: Review of the facility's Provider History Report revealed the facility received the same deficiency for three (3) consecutive recertification surveys. The deficiency category was for failing to accurately follow resident menus. On 1/09/25 at 2:50 PM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) stated she assigned all staff to watch a video on diet portion sizes as part of the QAPI Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). At 2:55 PM, the Administrator stated the CDM held monthly in-services and the administrative team held a skills fair twice yearly. She stated the video was provided to staff on 4/30/24 and 5/02/24. She stated all staff should 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 · Ecited before2025-01-09 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, menu review, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to follow the appropriate diet and serve the appropriate portions for (2) residents (#11, #18) who received pureed diets and failed to follow the menu diet for all residents who received gravy. The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: On 1/08/25 at 10:40 AM, Staff B, Cook, began making the pureed pork. He placed six (6) small pieces of pork into the blender and added 2 ounces (oz) of beef base. He blended the contents. He emptied the contents into a steam table bowl. Some of the contents was observed still in the blender when rinsed. The total volume was not measured and the Dishers Scoop Sizes, Colors and Yields chart was not used to determine the appropriate serving size prior to being served. At 11:37 AM, Staff C, Dietary Aide (DA), placed serving utensils in each menu item pan. She stated a #20 disher (1.6 fluid oz) was used for the pureed pork and pureed vegetable serving sizes, and a black handled scoop was used for gravy. She was not…
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 before2025-01-09 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 provide food served by a method to maintain a safe and appetizing temperature for one of one meal service observed. The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: On 1/08/23 at 11:37 AM, a continuous lunch service observation revealed Staff C, Dietary Aide (DA), obtained the temperature of one (1) food item, Salmon croquettes, prior to service and noted the temperature of 123.5° Fahrenheit (F). All other lunch menu items met acceptable temperatures. At 12:20 PM, Staff C obtained the temperatures of remaining lunch menu items after meal service ended. The results were: 1) Salmon croquettes - 117° F 2) Mashed potatoes - 124.8° F 3) Vegetable egg rolls - 122° F 4) Pureed pork - 124° F 5) Mechanical Soft egg rolls - 120° F A policy titled Food Preparation and Service revised 10/2018 indicated food held at temperatures between 41° F and 135° F promoted the rapid growth of pathogenic organisms that cause foodborne illness and must be maintained above 135° F. On 1/09/25 at 2:03 PM, 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 · Ecited before2025-01-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary practices by improperly storing and serving food. The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: On 1/06/25 at 10:20 AM, an initial kitchen observation identified the following findings: A [NAME] refrigerator contained: 1) Two (2) undated, unlabeled, sealed packs of long, round, hot-dog looking items. 2) Three (3) opened, undated bags of grapes in a single labeled box. 3) One (1) undated, previously opened 2-liter bottle of A&W root beer. 4) Three (3) undated, unlabeled, clear dispensers with a clear liquid and round, orange, disk shaped items. 5) Four (4) unlabeled, loaf shaped packages of a dark pink substance. A [NAME] freezer 1) One (1) undated, unlabeled, clear plastic bag with round, yellow items. 2) One (1) undated, unlabeled, clear plastic bag with a pink, meat-looking item on a cookie pan. The kitchen area contained: 1) A white bin labeled sugar had 1 sealed bag of sugar, 1…
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 before2023-09-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary practices by improperly storing, preparing, and serving food. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: During an initial kitchen observation on 9/25/23 at 9:35 AM, the following findings were identified: -Observed all of the Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning diffusers (HVAC vents) missing and two (2) ducts blowing air directly on a pan of barbeque (BBQ) chicken located on the food preparation table. Another exposed duct blowing air directly on the area designated for newly washed dishware. -Observed a serving scoop stored inside a bin of flour in direct contact with the contents. -Observed Staff A, Cook, did not have his facial hair covered while preparing food and Staff B, Dietary Aide (DA), did not cover the back of her hair while handling food. -The [NAME] refrigerator contained an undated bag of previously opened dinner rolls, a partially covered tray of vegetable…
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 · D2023-09-28 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain a clean, comfortable and homelike environment for 2 out of 8 resident rooms. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: 1. On 09/25/23 at 11:00 AM observation of the carpeted floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed excessive stains of various sizes and colors. A urine odor noted in the room. A second observation on 09/26/23 at 09:00 AM of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed no changes to the stained carpet and continued to have a strong urine odor. A third observation on 09/27/23 at 10:00 AM of room [ROOM NUMBER] showed stained carpet and urine odor remained unchanged. During an interview on 09/27/23 at 12:20 PM the Housekeeping Supervisor and the Maintenance Supervisor both confirmed the carpet was excessively stained and the urine odor noted but could not provide a date of the last time the carpet was shampooed. 2. On 09/26/23 at 10:10 AM observation of the carpeted floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]…
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 · D2023-09-28 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is 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 clinical record review, resident interview and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide restorative activities for 1 of 1 sampled resident in order to maintain a functional range of motion and prevent a decline in activities of daily living (Residents #3). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 had diagnoses that included anemia (low blood count), arthritis, Alzheimer's Disease, muscle weakness, and abnormal gait and mobility. The MDS revealed the resident required limited assistance of one for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, personal hygiene, and toileting. The MDS indicated no range of motion (ROM) impairment to the upper and lower extremities. The MDS revealed the resident had Occupational Therapy (OT) services from 4/10/23 - 5/31/23 and was actively receiving Physical Therapy (PT) services that began 7/2/23. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) for the resident recommended for Restorative…
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 before2023-09-28 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, menu review, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to serve the appropriate portions for the last five (5) residents who received green beans or mashed potatoes. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: On 9/27/23 at 12:53 PM, observed Staff C, Dietary Aide (DA) partially fill a #8 (4-oz) scoop for a serving of potatoes and a 4-oz ladle for a serving of green beans for the last 5 resident servings. At 12:59 PM, the Registered Dietician stated the serving size of vegetables is 4 oz. but less dense starches required larger portion servings. A review of the Week 5 Wednesday menu indicated a serving size of mashed potatoes was a #8 scoop and a serving size of green beans was four (4) ounces. A document titled Diet Type Report provided by the Dietary Manager revealed no resident was ordered half-portion sizes for meals. On 9/28/23 at 10:25 AM, the Dietary Manager stated staff should provide serving sizes according to the guidelines. A policy titled Kitchen Weights and Measures revised 10/2018…
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 before2023-09-28 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide food served by a method to maintain a safe and appetizing temperature. The facility reported a census of 39. Findings include: During a continuous observation on 9/27/23 beginning at 11:33 AM, Staff C, Dietary Aide (DA), obtained the temperatures of two (2) foods that were noted to be below the acceptable holding temperature. The mechanical soft turkey had a temperature of 131.4° Fahrenheit (F) and the pureed turkey had a temperature of 93° F. At 12:32 PM, Staff C prepared a resident plate containing the mechanical soft turkey but was asked to recheck the temperature of the mechanical soft turkey before serving it. The temperature observed to be 129° F and it was subsequently reheated to 190° F before being served to a resident. The pureed turkey was served to the resident without rechecking the temperature or being reheated. A policy titled Food Preparation and Service revised 10/2018 indicated food held at temperatures between 41° F and 135° F promoted the rapid growth of pathogenic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PIVOTAL HEALTH CARE — 9 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCENIC DEVELOPMENT LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/16/2012 |
| SCENIC HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/31/2018 |
| 3RK, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2021 |
| 5 R CATTLE, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/16/2012 |
| CADET INVESTMENT LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/16/2012 |
| LMRAY, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/16/2012 |
| POKY FEEDERS INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/16/2012 |
| WSG LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/16/2012 |
| ANDERSON, JORDAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2025 |
| ANDERSON, MARLENE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/16/2012 |
| ANDERSON, WAYNE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/16/2012 |
| GULLEDGE, SCOTT | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/16/2012 |
| GULLEDGE, TRAVIS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| HOWARD, STEVEN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 03/16/2012 |
| WOOD, GILBERT | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/16/2012 |
| PIVOTAL HEALTH CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/16/2012 |
| OCONNER, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/24/2011 |
| WILSON, JAYCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/16/2021 |
| IOWA PHYSICIANS CLINIC MEDICAL FOUNDATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/24/2011 |
| SUMMIT CARE, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/16/2012 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 30 rows in the source record cover these 20 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.
11 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 $309K 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 165605. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-22, 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.