Rehabilitation Centers of Independence West Campus
1610 Third Street NE, Independence, IA 50644 · For profit - Corporation · 70 certified beds · (319) 334-6039 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Apr 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- 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 (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $22,740 in federal fines (most recent 2025-11-06)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (60%) 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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 15.9% | 17.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 27.9% | 4.2% | 6.5% | check this† — see note marked dagger 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 | 1.1% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.1% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.9% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.2% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.7% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.8% | 25.6% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 35.8% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.7% | 73.3% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 9.2% | 20.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.3% | 13.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.31 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.21 | 2.08 | 1.80 | better |
† This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. 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.
53.0% 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 37 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.5% 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 26 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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 | 53.0%CMS range 40.9–63.9 | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 5.2–15.1 | 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 | 61.5% | 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 | 46.1% | 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 | 46.1% | 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 | 55.2% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 3.4–12.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.70 | 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 70 beds and averages 52.8 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.18 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.11 is below 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 2.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.32 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.60 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-11-06 · 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, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide supervision for an ambulatory cognitively impaired resident for 1 of 2 residents identified by the facility as an elopement risk (Resident #1). On 10/17/25 around 8:11 PM, Resident #1 went out the B-wing door, walked down the facility sidewalk, across the facility graveled parking lot, across a residential street, across a hospital parking lot and into the hospital ambulance garage. The Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Personal contacted the facility to inform them that the resident was at the emergency room entrance at 8:32 PM. The facility had been unaware the resident had eloped (ran away) until contacted by the Emergency Personal. The resident was identified with cognitive impairment, impaired safety awareness, and wandering behaviors. Staff failed to determine the cause of an activated exit door alarm, and assure that all residents were safe and accounted for. This failure resulted in…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-01-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff and provider interviews, and policy review the facility failed to contact the provider, and provide intervention for health condition changes noted with a pre-dialysis assessment prior to transfer to a scheduled dialysis appointment on [DATE] for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1) who was assessed as lethargic, pulse of 47, and pulse oximeter (oxygen level) 87% on room air. Resident had been diagnosed with Covid-19 on [DATE] and had been experiencing loose stools, lack of appetite, weakness, and confusion. Resident arrived at the Dialysis Center, 30 miles from the facility, non-responsive, with diminished lung sounds, Blood Pressure (BP) 66/32 and required immediate transfer to the local emergency room (ER) for stabilization of life-threatening conditions. These circumstances posed Immediate Jeopardy to resident health and safety that began on [DATE]. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on [DATE] at 1:25 p.m. The facility took appropriate steps 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 · Ecited before2026-04-01 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, review of the facility computerized call light response times, and facility policy review, the facility failed to answer resident call lights in a timely manner for four of five residents reviewed. (Resident #4, #5, #6, #7).The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include:1.The MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 3/3/2026 reported Resident #4 had no cognitive impairment and had diagnoses including compression fracture, anxiety and diabetes. The resident transferred from one surface to another with staff assistance and a stand up lift. Observation on 3/31/2026 revealed the resident's call light on from approximately 7:37 a.m. until 8:00 a.m. At 7:55 a.m. the resident sat at the edge of the bed and indicated he needed to use the restroom. At 8:00 a.m. staff entered the room to assist him. A review of the computerized call light audit revealed the resident's call light activated at 7:35 a.m. and remained on for 24 minutes. The resident reported it often…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-11 · 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 clinical record review, Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Services Long-Term Care (LTC) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, and staff interview, the facility failed to accurately code the use of medication on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for 1 of 5 residents sampled (Resident #1); and failed to accurately code a determination of serious mental illness as identified on the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for 1 of 1 residents sampled (Resident #18). The facility identified a census of 51 residents.Findings include:1.Resident #1's MDS dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15 indicating a severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented Resident #1 received anticoagulant (medication that prevent blood from clotting) and antiplatelet (medication that makes the blood less sticky by stopping platelets from clumpting together) medications.The September and October 2025 Electronic Medication Administration Records…
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 before2025-12-11 · 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 resident and staff interviews the facility failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for EBP (Resident #14). The faciltiy reported a census of 51 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #14, dated 9/9/25, documented the resident had an indwelling catheter. During an interview on 12/8/25, the resident reported he had an indwelling catheter. An observation at the same time revealed the EBP poster on the resident's door and a chest of drawers right outside his door. During an observation on 12/10/25 at 1:31 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), entered the room to empty the catheter drainage bag. She performed hand hygiene and donned gloves. She proceeded to empty the drainage bag. She did not don a gown as required by EBP. During an interview on 12/10/25 at 1:38 PM, the MDS Coordinator acknowledged there was an EBP poster on the resident's door, the chest of drawers outside the room contained the required PPE, including gowns, and she would expect Staff A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-12 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 interview, and resident interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean, comfortable and homelike environment. The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 8/11/2025 at 9:00 A.M. included: a. A Hall - Wall paper border above hand rail partially removed, peeling in multiple areas. Hall carpet with a large amount of dark stains and blackened colored areas. b. A Hall - room [ROOM NUMBER], #5 - Room carpet with moderate amount of dark stains. c. C Hall - room [ROOM NUMBER], #27, #36 - Room carpet with moderate amount of dark stains. 2. Observation on 8/11/25 at 8:15 A.M. revealed the following: The center hall carpet that went into the service hallway and the kitchen revealed darkened, blackish discoloration on the carpet with areas of solid blackened spots that measured the width of the doors. The carpet leading to the dining room from the center hallway was darkly discolored with blackened spots that measured the width of the double doors.…
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 · D2025-08-12 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow physician orders for one of three residents reviewed (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include:Resident #2's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 7/18/2025 revealed he had no cognitive impairment, had diagnoses including diabetes, absence left toes, anemia, heart failure, renal insufficiency, hypertension and had diabetic foot ulcers. The Care Plan identified the resident had a risk for alteration in skin integrity related to type two diabetes and other circulatory complications. It directed staff to administer treatments per physician orders, encourage good nutrition and hydration in order to promote healthier skin, and observe skin with ADL's (activities of daily living). A Wound Clinic Note dated 7/31/2025 included an order to provide one serving of Prostat AWC (advanced wound care), a protein supplement, one serving daily. Protein to assist with wound healing.On 8/12/2025 at 12:50 Staff B, DON (Director of Nursing) reported a staff nurse missed the wound clinic order…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-12 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, review of computerized call light response times, and facility policy review the facility failed to answer resident call lights in a timely manner for two of three residents reviewed (Resident #1, #6). The facility failed to have the call light within reach for one of seven residents reviewed (Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 56 residents. Findings include:1.The MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 7/2/2025 reported Resident #5 had severe cognitive impairment and had diagnoses including diabetes, history of falls and fracture of the left humerus. The MDS indicated the resident had a fall with no injury since the previous assessment. The resident's Care Plan directed staff to assist the resident with transfers and ambulation with the use of a gait belt, and ensure the call light is within reach. Observation on 8/11/2025 at 9:10 a.m. revealed Resident #5 seated in her room in a recliner with a bedside table at her right side. The call light sat on the bed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-17 · 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 resident interviews, staff interviews, and record review the facility failed to prevent financial exploitation for 1 out of 1 residents reviewed for allegations of abuse (Resident #2). The facility identified a census of 53 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 1/14/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #2 which included anemia, atrial fibrillation, neurogenic bladder, paraplegia, and pressure ulcer. The MDS stated the resident required set up assistance from staff for toileting hygiene, showering, dressing, personal hygiene, and transferring. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, indicating cognitively intact. Review of a document provided by Resident #2 to the facility revealed a twenty dollar electronic funds transfer to Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on 2/19/25 at 9:01 PM. During an interview on 4/16/25 at 11:00 AM Resident #2 stated it was late February and I was warming something up in 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 · D2025-04-17 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the proper agency in a required time frame for 1 of 1 allegations of abuse reviewed (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 53 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 1/14/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #2 which included anemia, atrial fibrillation, neurogenic bladder, paraplegia, and pressure ulcer. The MDS stated the resident required set up assistance from staff for toileting hygiene, showering, dressing, personal hygiene, and transferring. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status(BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, indicating cognitively intact. Review of a summary incident provided by the facility revealed Resident #2, was a resident of the facility from 1/7/2025 to 3/28/2025. After discharging to home, Resident #2 called the facility to report that he transferred $22 to a facility caregiver, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) by Pay Pal at the end of February. Resident #2 reports…
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 · E2024-11-14 · tag F0800 — patternProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
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, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to provide each resident with a palatable, well balanced diet that takes into consideration the preferences of each resident. (Resident #14). During an observation of a meal, the facility failed to maintain cold foods below 41 degrees, obtain temperatures and serve the correct portion size of pureed meals. The facility reported a census of 48 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified Resident #14 as cognitively intact with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15 out of 15 and had the following diagnoses: Diabetes Mellitus, Arthritis, and [NAME]-[NAME] Syndrome. The MDS also identified Resident #14 to be totally dependent on staff assistance with showers, toileting, lower body dressing, the MDS also identified Resident #14 required substantial/maximal assistance with upper body dressing and transfers. Interviews with Resident #14 revealed the following: 11/12/24 at 9:43 AM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-14 · 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, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when laundering soiled items. The facility reported a census of 48 residents. Findings include: In an observation on 11/13/24 at 1:13 PM Staff A, Laundry/Housekeeping donned gloves, failed to put on a gown, removed the laundry bin lid and put table cloths and cloth napkins in the washing machine. She then removed the gloves, shut the machine door, and started the washer. In an interview on 11/13/24 at 1:04 PM Staff A explained clothes are collected in a bin and sorted into containers. Staff wear gloves for sorting regular laundry and wear a gown, goggles, and gloves for isolation items. Isolation is done at the very end of the day. She further explained some residents have family wash their items, but the facility washes everyone's towels, sheets, dining linens, etc. In an interview on 11/13/24 at 1:16 PM the Environmental Supervisor explained she expected gloves are to be worn when sorting soiled laundry unless it is something from an isolation room,…
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 · D2023-10-19 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a change in condition for 1 of 7 resident's sampled (Resident #49). The facility identified a census of 55 residents. Findings include: Resident #49's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 7 indicating severe cognitive loss. The Resident required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, and toilet use. The MDS listed a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The Care Plan dated 8/15/23 documented Resident #49 had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and directed the staff to monitor/document/report signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (hyperglycemia is excessively high blood sugar which can become severe and cause serious health problems that require emergency care, including a diabetic coma. Hyperglycemia that lasts, even if it's not severe, can lead to health problems that affect the eyes, kidneys, nerves and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-19 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a full assessment on a resident that exhibited confusion with a blood sugar of 409 for 1 of 5 residents sampled (Resident #49). The facility identified a census of 55 residents. Findings include: Resident #49's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 7 indicating severe cognitive loss. The Resident required extensive assistance of two staff for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, and toilet use. The MDS listed a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. The Care Plan dated 8/15/23 documented Resident #49 had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and directed the staff to monitor/document/report signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (hyperglycemia is excessively high blood sugar which can become severe and cause serious health problems that require emergency care, including a diabetic coma. Hyperglycemia that lasts, even if it's not severe, can lead to health problems…
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 before2023-10-19 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff and resident interview's the facility failed to answer call lights in a timely fashion for 1 of 7 resident reviewed (Resident #18). The facility reported a census of 55 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #18 dated 9/26/23, listed diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, arthritis, and falls. The MDS reflected a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicated intact cognition. The MDS identified Resident #18 required extensive assist of one staff for transferring and dressing. The MDS continued to reflect she needed set up assistance for eating. The Care Plan for Resident #18 reflected a target date of 1/15/24, revealed She wanted to eat meals in her room. The Care Plan identified a goal she will maintain her daily preferences with staff assistance. On 10/17/23 at 8:06 AM, Resident # 18 sat in her recliner. Resident #18's tray table held her breakfast tray and sat out of her reach by several inches. She reported she turned on her call 15 minutes ago due to her inability to reach her…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$22,740 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $9,113 — penalty dated 2025-11-06
- $13,627 — penalty dated 2024-01-08
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-01-31 for 8 days
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 | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.3 | +1.7 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 | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/2024 |
| LEGACY HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| BEASLEY, KARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| BEHOUNEK, LINSEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| BORCHERDING, JENNY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| BURKEN, SHERI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| DEFORD, COLIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| FRIEDENBERG, LAURA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| HEDBERG, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| HEYING, LARINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| HOUSTON, MINDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| HUNT, AMBER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| JAEGER, KRYSTLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| JOHNSTON, ROBERTA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| LARSON, MELISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| MCCLURE, DOROTHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| OTTERBECK, PATRICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| RAJCHENBACH, CHAIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| SHEAR, KILEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| VAN VEGHEL, ELIZABETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| WIERSCHEM, BOBBIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| FRIEDMAN, BRIAN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2025 |
| RAJCHENBACH, AVRUM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2025 |
| RAJCHENBACH, RIVKA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2025 |
| SHABAT, AHUVA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2025 |
| 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 |
| GPN FAMILY TRUST U/A/D 4/28/08 | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/15/2024 |
| INDEPENDENCE IA PROPERTY HOLDINGS, 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 56 rows in the source record cover these 34 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
10 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 70% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $846K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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 165303. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-11, 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.