West Ridge Specialty Care
1904 West Howard Street, Knoxville, IA 50138 · Non profit - Corporation · 78 certified beds · (641) 842-3153 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 | 7.7% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.1% | 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 | 2.1% | 2.4% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.8% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.8% | 16.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.7% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.5% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.5% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 29.9% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.1% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.7% | 73.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.5% | 20.9% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 20.3% | 13.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.87 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.43 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
48.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 68 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.5% 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 43 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 0.20 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 21% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 48.1%CMS range 38.8–57.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 7.4–15.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 46.5% | 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 | 25.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 30.2% | 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 | 92.7% | 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 | 3.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 4.0–12.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 78 beds and averages 65.0 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 13 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 3.10 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.86 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 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 2.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.31 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.02 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-23 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — patternEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on electronic record review, resident interviews, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide restorative programs as care planned for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for restorative care (Residents #2, #7, and #8). The facility reported a census of 71. Findings include: 1. Resident #7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment completed on 10/2/25 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Diagnoses included a right femur (thigh bone) fracture, lack of coordination, history of falling, and cognitive communication deficit (difficulty speaking or understanding). The MDS documented limited range of motion on one side of the lower extremity including the hip, knee, ankle, and foot, and noted the use of a manual wheelchair for mobility. Resident #7 received Physical Therapy (PT), Occupational Therapy (OT), and Speech Therapy (ST) services in the seven days lookback period. On 4/21/26 at 12:42 PM Resident #7 reported he hadn't received his restorative programs recently for at least the past two weeks and he didn't know…
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 · E2026-04-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 electronic record review, resident interviews, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide resident showers as scheduled for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (Residents #1, #2, #4, #5, and #7). The facility reported a census of 71. Findings include: 1. Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment completed on 3/18/26 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The DMS included diagnoses of arthritis (joint inflammation), low back pain, malnutrition (lack of proper nutrition), and osteoporosis (brittle bones). The MDS noted the use of a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Resident #3 required maximum staff assistance for bathing and transfers to and from the bed to the wheelchair. The Care Plan, revised 3/31/26, outlined Resident #3 required staff assistance for bathing. The Documentation Survey Report v2 outlined Resident #3 scheduled for bathing two times per week on Tuesdays and Fridays. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-11-04 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff interview, policy review, and resident interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to a dignified existence by failing to carry out perineal cares in a timely manner after incontinence episodes for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for incontinence care assistance (Resident #1) and for multiple, random residents affected, as reported by multiple staff members. The facility reported a census of 74 residents. Findings: 1. The Minimum Data Set(MDS) assessment tool, dated 10/24/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #1 which included hemiplegia(one-sided paralysis), anxiety, and depression. The MDS stated the resident was frequently incontinent with bowel and bladder and stated the resident was dependent on staff assistance for toileting hygiene. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status(BIMS) score as 14 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. The facility policy Dignity, revised February 2021, stated the facility would care for residents in a manner that promoted and enhanced well-being, satisfaction with life, 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 before2024-08-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to report suspected abuse to the proper state agency within two (2) hours. The facility reported a census of 72 residents. Findings include: A Facility Reported Incident (FRI) dated 7/29/24 indicated the facility reported to the State Agency (SA) on 7/24/24 at 10:58 am Resident #1 stated Staff A, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) swore at her in the early morning of 7/24/24. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated completely intact cognition. It included diagnoses of anemia, Coronary Artery Disease (CAD), Heart Failure, renal failure, Diabetes Mellitus, thyroid disorder, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). It indicated the resident required set-up assistance with eating and oral hygiene and was dependent or required maximum assistance with all other areas of Activities of Daily…
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 · D2024-03-14 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to notify the provider of a resident's low blood sugars for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for a change in condition (Resident#1). The facility reported a census of 74 residents. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 8/15/23, listed diagnoses for Resident #1 which included diabetes, malnutrition, and anxiety disorder. The MDS stated the resident received insulin and listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status(BIMS) score as 13 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. The facility policy Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, revised February 2021, stated the facility promptly notified the attending physician of changes in the resident's medial condition. The August 2023 Medication Administration Record(MAR) listed a 6/1/23 order to check blood sugars before meals and at bed time. The order directed staff to report to the primary care physician if below 60 milligrams per deciliter(mg/dl) or over 400 mg/dl. A 12/14/23 Care Plan entry stated 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 · D2024-03-14 · 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 clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to carry out an intervention to prevent a fall, and failed to ensure Care Plan entries based on root cause analysis were carried out and documented on the Care Plan for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for falls(Residents #3 and #6). The facility reported a census of 74 residents. Findings include: 1. An 11/17/14 Care Plan entry documented that Resident #3 was at risk for falls. A 2/23/23 Care Plan entry stated the resident had bolsters on her mattress(additional cushions placed on a mattress which can prevent rolling). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 3/30/23, listed diagnoses for Resident #3 which included dementia, osteoarthritis of the knee(inflammation of the knee bone) and muscle wasting. The MDS documented the resident required extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and depended completely on 1 staff for bathing. The MDS listed 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 · D2023-05-04 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, clinical record review, policy review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to accommodate medication administration time preference for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #27) in the sample. The facility reported a census of 75. Findings included: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 4/19/23, listed diagnosis for Resident #27 included: high blood pressure, depression, and hypothyroidism. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. A record review revealed a 3/20/23 physician order for Levothyroxine (a medication to treat hypothyroidism) 25 mcg (micrograms) 1 tablet by mouth one time a day. During an interview on 5/2/23 at 8:25 AM, Resident #27 stated that she has requested to receive levothyroxine before breakfast as the medication is to be taken before eating. The resident stated she receives the medication with all her morning medications, often after she has had her breakfast. During an observation on 5/3/23 at 9:41 AM, Resident #27 ate…
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 · D2023-05-04 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to maintain appropriate care for 2 out of 2 resident's catheters (Resident #26 and #52). The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings included: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) for Resident # 52 dated 4/19/23, listed diagnoses of dementia, obstructive uropathy and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). The MDS included the Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 7 (sever cognitive impairments). The MDS listed Resident # 52 required extensive assist of 1 staff for transfers, toileting, and personal hygiene. The Care Plan for Resident # 52 dated 04/28/2023, revealed a urinary tract infection (UTI), treated with an antibiotic from 4/28/23 through 5/3/23. The Physician's note dated 4/21/23, reflected the Chief Complaint/Nature of Presenting Problem: New onset dysuria (painful or difficult urination) and urgency with indwelling catheter present. The progress note revealed Resident…
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 · D2023-05-04 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, policy review, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to administer pain medication in a timely manner for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #176) in the sample. The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: 1. Theadmission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 4/11/22, listed diagnoses for Resident #176 which included: Cellulitis (skin infection) of right and left lower legs, peripheral venous insufficiency (veins not working effectively, making blood return difficult), and anxiety disorder. The MDS listed the Brief Interview for Mental Status) BIMS score as 3 out of 15, whcih indicated severely impaired cognition. During an interview on 5/1/23 at 2:06 PM, Resident #176 stated there have been times when she had to wait too long for pain medication. A record review revealed a 4/5/23 physician's order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen (tylenol) 7.5-325 mg (milligrams) 1 tablet every six hours as needed for pain (PRN). During an interview on 5/3/23 at 10:48 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 · D2023-05-04 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interviews the facility failed to support the behavior health needs in an effort to prevent self harm for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #27) in the sample. The facility reported a census of 75. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 4/19/23, listed diagnoses for Resident #27 included: Alzheimer's disease, depression, and hypothyroidism. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS Behavior Section documented no hallucinations or delusions during the review period. The assessment documented a 0, indicating behaviors such as scratching or picking self not exhibited. During an observation on 5/2/23 at 8:22 AM, Resident #27 noted to have a nickel size wound on her nose. The resident explained she had something on her nose and had to pick it off. A Skin & Wound note, dated 4/27/23 documented the wound as an abrasion, and acquired in house 12/13/22 with location documented as face. A review of 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 · D2023-05-04 · tag F0741 — failed to have staff trained for behavioral health — isolatedEnsure that the facility has sufficient staff members who possess the competencies and skills to meet the behavioral health needs of residents.
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 employee training list, facility policy and staff interviews the facility failed to provide behavior management training to staff to meet the behavioral health needs 1 of 1 residents (Resident #27) in the sample The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings Include 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 4/19/23, listed diagnosis for Resident #27 included: Alzheimer's disease, depression, and hypothyroidism. The MDS listed the resident ' s Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. A review of progress notes in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed the resident acquired the following wounds from picking her skin: a. On 12/13/23 an abrasion on her face (nose) b On 2/11/23 a skin tear on her right forearm c. On 2/20/20 two abrasions on her abdomen d. On 4/29/23 an abrasion on her right, and left thighs A review of the residents care plan revealed a lack of focus and interventions for the behavior of picking skin.…
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 before2021-07-22 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to report an injury of unknown origin for 1 of 1 sampled (Resident #117) to the Department. The facility reported a census of 65 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #117 had diagnoses of diabetes, arthritis, and dementia. The MDS stated the resident required the limited assistance of 2 staff for walking and personal hygiene, extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use, and depended completely on 2 staff for bathing. Resident #117 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 8, indicating moderately impaired cognition. An Incident Report dated 7/11/21 documented Resident #117 had a bruise on the left medial thigh measuring 9.72 centimeters (cm) by 6.15 cm of unknown origin. The facility lacked documentation they reported the injury to the State Agency. The Dependent Adult Abuse policy dated November 2019 directed staff to report…
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 · D2021-07-22 · 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, resident interview, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to carry out Physician's orders for 2 of 20 (Residents #10 and #118) sampled for orders. The facility reported a census of 65 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #10 had diagnoses of dry eye syndrome, muscle wasting, and kidney disease. Resident #10 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14, indicating no cognitive impairments. During an interview on 7/19/21 at 11:01 a.m., Resident #10 stated she was supposed to have eye surgery today but the facility forgot to order her eye drops so they had to cancel the surgery. An undated Clinic Notes stated Resident #10 had surgery scheduled on July 19, 2021 and instructed to administer one drop of Besivance (antibiotic) eye drop and Prolensa (anti-inflammatory) eye drop in the right eye 2 times per day for 14 days starting on 7/18/21 (one day before the surgery). An undated Clinic Note…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARE INITIATIVES — 43 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARE INITIATIVES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/01/2009 |
| COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST COMPANY, NA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| BEAL, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2020 |
| BOWEN, LANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| CAROTHERS, MARY JANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| CHILDS, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| CORLESS, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| KREIN, KEITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| RUST, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| STURM, DENISE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| UPMEYER, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| DIXON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2016 |
| DRAKE, EMILY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/04/2023 |
| GILYARD, TANYA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/23/2025 |
| KUHN, JERAMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/25/2008 |
| MCDYER, JESSICA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/22/2023 |
| RAFFERTY, SUSAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/13/2025 |
| VOLM, JOHANNA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| COX, BRITTANY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/26/2026 |
| MAHLER, CARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| WEI, SHIPENG | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $643K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165308. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-07-03, 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.