Childserve Habilitation Center
5900 Pioneer Parkway, Johnston, IA 50131 · Non profit - Corporation · 74 certified beds · (515) 270-2205 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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 (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2023
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 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 |
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 5 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 | 0.0% | 17.1% | 15.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.9% | 4.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 5.3% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 1.5% | 0.2% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.8% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 71.2% | 20.8% | 18.9% | check this† — see note marked dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.9% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.2% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.5% | 25.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.3% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.5% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 69.6% | 73.3% | 79.4% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
† 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.57 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 74 beds and averages 69.8 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 10.30 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 4.17 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 4.94 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 8.69 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 10.96 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 4.84 to 2.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) to prevent cross contamination during routine cares for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for indwelling medical devices (Residents #2, #3 and #4). The facility reported a census of 70.Findings include:1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #2 had diagnoses of Multidrug-Resistant Organism (MDRO), cerebral palsy and severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (a critical neonatal brain injury caused by severe oxygen deprivation and restricted blood flow (asphyxia) around the time of birth). It also indicated he received tracheostomy care (a surgically created opening in the neck leading into the trachea (windpipe) to assist with breathing) and had a gastrostomy (a medical procedure to insert a feeding tube (G-tube) through the abdomen directly into the stomach, allowing for…
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 · E2025-05-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to secure prescribed medications from the possibility of unauthorized access. The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings included: Observations on 4/30/2025 revealed the following events; On 4/30/25 at 11:38 AM, Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) walked away from her medication cart in the patient care hallway and entered a storage room. A key was observed lying on top of the medication cart. At 11:40 AM, Staff A walked past the medication cart with water and entered a resident's room. There was one resident present but unable to manipulate the key or the medication cart. When Staff A returned to the medication cart, she confirmed the key was used to unlock the medication cart and stated she didn't realize she left it on the cart. At 11:41 AM, Staff A removed medications from her cart, locked the cart and entered a resident's room. The key was observed lying on top of the medication cart. At 11:43 AM, another staff member entered the hallway where Staff A's medication cart was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to implement the Infection Prevention and Control Program (IPCP) by staff not discarding Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) immediately after use nor appropriately performing hand hygiene. The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: On 4/30/25 at 7:45 AM, Staff C, Housekeeping (HSKG) entered a resident's room, that displayed a contact/droplet isolation sign, wearing gloves but no other Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). She grabbed the trash bag out of the trashcan closest to the entry, tied it in a knot, then grabbed the trash bag from the other trashcan against the furthest wall, tied it in a knot, and brought them out of the residents' room. She placed the bags of trash in a large container then entered another room with a standard precautions sign displayed, collected the trash bags, brought them out of the room, and placed them in the large container. She grabbed the roll of trash bags from the adjacent cart, separated two (2) trash bags from the roll, then handed the roll…
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 · E2024-07-03 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to notify the long term care ombudsman for resident transfer to an acute care hospital for 6 of 6 (Res #22, #26, #46, #54, #56, #70) residents reviewed for hospitalization. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) of Resident # 22 documented a discharge, return anticipated, to an acute care hospital on [DATE] and 5/2/24. The MDS of Resident #26 documented a discharge, return anticipated, to an acute care hospital on 2/5/24, 3/31/24, 4/10/24 and 4/13/24. The MDS of Resident #46 documented a discharge, return anticipated, to an acute care hospital on [DATE] and 3/23/24. The MDS of Resident #54 documented a discharge, return anticipated, to an acute care hospital on 3/1/24, 4/13/24, 4/18/24 and 5/19/24. The MDS of Resident #56 documented a discharge, return anticipated, to an acute care hospital on 5/19/24. The MDS of Resident #70 documented a discharge, return anticipated, to an acute care hospital on 3/9/24 and 4/11/24. The document…
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 before2024-07-03 · 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, record review, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide appropriate infection prevention practices when providing enteral tube feedings, nasal and tracheostomy suctioning for 2 of 7 residents observed (Resident #57 & #60). The facility reported a census of 69 residents. Findings include: 1. Observation on 6/30/24 at 12:05 PM revealed Staff A, RN, was not wearing gloves, standing at Resident #57's bedside, setting up enteral tube feeding by pouring measured formula into feeding bag that runs into a pump, tubing from the pump connects to Resident #57's feeding tube (g-tube). Staff A rolled Resident #57 toward herself noticing mucus drainage from his nose. Staff A, not wearing gloves, used a nasal cannula attached to a suction machine and suctioned mucus from Resident #57's nose. Staff A, then used hand sanitizer, completed feeding set up and connected Resident #57's feeding tube port to the tubing from the pump and started the feeding. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-24 · 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 observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide timely notification to the physician or family when changes occurred in the resident's physical or mental condition for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (#1 & #3). The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include: 1. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was rarely or never understood and a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was not obtained. The MDS included diagnoses of Seizure disorder, Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder, dependence on supplemental oxygen, and Failure to Thrive. The MDS also indicated the resident was dependent in all areas of care. On 1/4/24 at 7:53 AM, Staff A, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) documented a Nursing Assessment indicating the resident was on room air with a documented oxygen saturation (O2 sats) of 85%. The Care Plan dated 7/8/19 directed staff to communicate any changes in condition to the physician and to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-24 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were followed for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (#1 & #2). The facility identified a census of 61 residents. Findings include: 1. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was rarely or never understood and a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was not obtained. The MDS included diagnoses of Seizure disorder, Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder, dependence on supplemental oxygen, and Failure to Thrive. The MDS also indicated the resident was dependent in all areas of care. The Care Plan dated 7/8/19 directed staff to communicate any changes in condition to the physician and to use oxygen to keep O2 sats greater than 90%. On 1/4/24 at 7:53 AM, Staff A, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) documented a Nursing Assessment indicating the resident was on room air with a documented oxygen saturation (O2 sats) of 85%. The EHR contained a Physician Order entry directing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-24 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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, clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide a complete, accurate, and detailed record for the resident's physical condition to maintain the resident's highest practical well-being for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (#1 & #2). The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include: 1. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was rarely or never understood and a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was not obtained. The MDS included diagnoses of Seizure disorder, Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder, dependence on supplemental oxygen, and Failure to Thrive. The MDS also indicated the resident was dependent in all areas of care. The Care Plan dated 7/8/19 directed staff to use oxygen to keep O2 sats greater than 90%. On 1/4/24 at 7:53 AM, Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) documented a Nursing Assessment indicating Resident #1 was on room air with a documented oxygen saturation (O2 sats) of 85%.…
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 · E2023-09-14 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to immediately put effective measures in place to ensure further potential abuse or mistreatment does not occur for 1 of 1 dependent residents (Resident #52) when four (4) employees observed questionable physical and verbal abuse by Staff A, Respiratory Therapist (RT) to Resident #52. The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include: On 9/13/23 at 9:58 AM Staff B, Certified Nurse Aid (CNA) described her observation she had of Resident #52 and Staff A's interaction on 4/23/23 as follows; Resident #52 was in sun room sitting on the floor and she pulled at her medical device on her neck, I was washing my hands at the sink, and Staff A pulled Resident #52 hand away, and she said something like, stop doing that, this is the fourth (4th) time I had to put a new one on you today, in a not nice tone. She then informed Resident #52 got up and walked off, and she looked sad, and she knew she had been yelled at. I felt it was inappropriate because Resident #52 is really grabby and she does that 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 · D2023-09-14 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 residents (Resident #52) reviewed was treated with respect and dignity by all staff, when Staff A, Respiratory Therapist, scolded Resident #52 for grabbing at her medical device. The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #52 documented she has short-term and long-term memory problems, inability to recall current season, location of room, staff names and faces, and that she is in a nursing facility, and severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS also documented she is totally dependent on 1 staff member for dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS documented the diagnosis of seizure disorder or epilepsy, anxiety, dysphasia, hearing loss. Record review of an undated document titled, Care Investigation Summary informed the following Summary of Event(s): a. Child (Resident #52) from Long…
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 · D2023-09-14 · 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 policy review the facility failed to report alleged physical and verbal abuse without bodily injury for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #52) within 24 hours of the incident to the state agency. The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include: Record review of an undated document titled, Care Investigation Summary informed the following Summary of Event(s): a. Child (Resident #52) from Long Term Care (LTC) unit was receiving routine care on 4/23/2023 when she removed her heat and moisture exchanger from her tracheostomy. Staff A, a travel Respiratory Therapist (RT) allegedly slapped the child's hands and yelled at her. Event was witnessed by several staff. b. Resident #52 did not sustain any physical injury, but she appeared visibly upset following the event. She received a dose of Tylenol. c. The event was reported to DIAL on 4/26/23. Staff reported the event to their supervisor, but it was not immediate, per policy. Once the supervisor was notified of the event, she promptly share information with the Licensed Nursing Home…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in IA
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 16A001. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-01, 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.