Westview Acres Care Center
203 S W Lorraine, Leon, IA 50144 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 46 certified beds · (641) 446-4165 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- 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 (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 17.4% | 17.1% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.5% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 4.1% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 8.2% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.7% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.8% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.7% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.9% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.3% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.63 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.76 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.10 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 6% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 46 beds and averages 39.8 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.62 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 3.12 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.83 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.58 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-05 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on electronic health record review, document review, and staff interviews the facility failed to complete and submit a comprehensive assessment related to a significant change for 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Finding include: A review of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) for Resident #5 section Minimum Data Set (MDS) revealed the latest quarterly assessment completed on 3/13/2025. A review of the Care Plan for Resident #5 reflected a focus area Hospice initiated on 3/19/2025 due to a decline in health status. Interventions/Tasks documented the hospice services company name and a contact number for emergency services. It further describes steps to take in care of any decline and/or improvement in health. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/05/25 at 11:10 am, she stated a significant change in Resident #5's health status occurred when the Care Plan was updated with the Hospice services initiated on 3/19/2025. The DON reviewed the EHR and noted there was no MDS entry made on or within 14 days 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 · Fcited before2024-07-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide 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, document reviews, and policy review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive water management program and identify areas or devices in the building to reduce the risk and prevent the growth of Legionella or other waterborne pathogens. The facility also failed to implement appropriate hand hygiene practices during resident care. The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: 1. On 7/25/24 at 11:00 AM, the Maintenance Director stated the facility did not have a current water flow diagram, a water management plan, or a process in place to identify areas in the building to reduce the risk or growth of Legionella or other waterborne pathogens. On 7/25/24 at 11:20 AM, the Environmental Services Director stated she flushed every resident toilet and turned on the water in every resident room sink for 30 seconds every day. She also stated she wasn't able to provide documentation of the completed task. During an interview on 7/25/24 at 11:20 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated there hadn't been a resident room vacant…
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 · E2024-07-25 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, facility policy, and staff interview, the facility failed to have the Doctor signature on the Iowa Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (IPOST) for 1 of 16 residents reviewed for Advance Directives (Resident # 17). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: The Iowa Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (IPOST) dated 12/11/23 revealed no Doctor signature for a code status of Do Not Resuscitate. On 7/23/24 at 10:05 AM the Social Worker (SW) revealed the IPOST did not get signed by the Doctor. The facility policy titled Advance Directives revised 7/18/24 instructed staff the residents attending Physician will clarify and present any relevant medical issues and decisions to the resident or legal representative as the residents condition changes in an effort to clarify and adhere to the residents wishes. The Interdisciplinary Team will conduct ongoing review of the residents decision-making capacity and communicate significant changes to the residents legal representative. Such changes will be documented in the care plan 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 · E2024-07-25 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, resident interview, and policy review, the facility failed to respond to resident call lights in a timely manner for 5 of 5 residents reviewed (#1, #7, #13, #30, & #32). The facility reported a census of 40. Findings include: 1. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of hypertension, Non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. It indicated the resident was independent in all activities of daily living (ADLs) but required moderate assistance with bathing. The Care Plan revised 12/28/23 documented Resident #13 is at moderate risk for falls and directed staff to encourage her to wear her shoes with all transfers and gripper socks when not wearing shoes. The Care Plan also directed staff to encourage her to get out of her bed and out of her room every day due to anxiety and tends to isolate herself. On…
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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on employee file review, staff interview, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 staff members reviewed (Staff A, Certified Nurse Aide) completed the two hour Dependent Adult Abuse training within 6 months of their hire date. The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: Review of the employee file of Staff A, conducted on 7/24/24, revealed a hire date of 10/6/23. The employee file documented the Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) approved Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Reporter training was completed on 7/23/24. On 7/24/24 at 10:50 am, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Staff A had done the training in February but failed to finalize it until 7/23/24. She stated the facility is conducting an audit of all employee files for current training. The facility policy titled Nursing Facility Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy, dated July 2019, documented the following: - Within six months of hire each employee shall be required to complete an initial 2-hour training course provided by the Iowa Department…
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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to revise the care plan for 1 of 16 residents reviewed for revision of care plan (Resident #23). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Sheet (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 14 which indicated cognition intact. The MDS revealed the resident independent with bed mobility, personal care, transfers, toileting, eating, and dressing. The MDS revealed the resident frequently incontinent of urine and occasional incontinent of bowel. The MDS documented diagnoses that included: other and unspecified nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cerebrovascular accident, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), morbid (Severe) obesity, unspecified mental disorder due to known physiological condition, restless legs syndrome, and atrial fibrillation. The MDS revealed antidepressant, insulin, and diuretic. The Care Plan…
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 · D2024-07-25 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a psychotropic medication (a medication that affects a person's mental state) gradual dose reduction (GDR) was appropriately attempted for 1 of 1 resident (#13) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 40. Findings include: On 7/22/24 at 4:19 PM, Resident #13 stated she slept about 5 hours during the daytime after sleeping at night. She did not know what medications she was prescribed. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of hypertension, Non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. It indicated the resident received an antidepressant and antianxiety medication but had not exhibited a crying episode during the previous 7-day look-back period. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) included an order dated 12/07/23 for Buspirone…
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 · Fcited before2024-02-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on staff interviews, facility record review, facility policy review, and Centers for Disease Control information the facility failed to follow proper infection control practices to mitigate the risk for the spread of infectious disease. The facility reported a resident census of 33. Findings include: On 2/27/24 at 8:00 a.m. Staff C, Dietary Aide (DA), stated she has gotten COVID twice since working at the facility. Staff C stated she doesn't recall specific dates, but recalled in September 2023, not feeling well and discussed her symptoms with the cook. Staff C stated she then texted the Dietary Supervisor (DS) and reported her symptoms. The DS instructed her to take a COVID test per protocol. Staff C stated she did and it was positive for COVID. Staff C stated she texted the DS with the results and was instructed to go home per protocol. Staff C stated she was not allowed to work for several days. On 2/27/24 at 8:25 a.m. the Dietary Supervisor (DS) stated she recalled receiving a text from Staff C reporting that she was not feeling well. The DS stated she still had the text…
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 · D2023-05-24 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, staff interview and facility policy review the facility failed to provide bed hold notice for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #25). The facility reported a census of 34. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool dated 5/2/23 for Resident #25 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 6 out of 15 possible points indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Clinical Census revealed Resident #25 discharged from the facility to the hospital on 3/31/23. The clinical record lacked documentation of any explanation of the bed hold notification to the resident or the resident's representative when the resident discharged to the hospital on 3/31/23. In an interview on 5/23/23 at 12:49 PM, Staff A, Social Services reported there was not a bed hold notice completed for Resident #25 for his transfer to the hospital and the nurse had forgot to complete one. In an interview on 5/23/23 at 1:12 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated it was the expectation a bed hold be completed every time a resident was transferred 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 · D2023-05-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food and medications were not stored together in the same refrigerator for 2 of 2 unit medication storage refrigerators. The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings included: On 05/22/23 at 02:40 PM, an observation of the [NAME] and East nursing station medication refrigerators revealed multiple insulin vials along with chocolate pudding containers, applesauce pouches, and liquid thickener used during medication pass. On 05/23/23 at 07:32 AM, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated the applesauce is kept in the door of the refrigerator at the East nursing station because the residents like it cold with the medication. She stated that is where it has always been kept. On 05/23/23 at 01:00 PM, the Director of Nursing confirmed the medication storage policy specified that food was not to be stored with medications in the same refrigerator. On 05/23/23 at 01:02 PM, the facility policy titled Medication Storage in the Facility revised January 2018 instructed staff that…
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 · D2023-05-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the sanitizing solution used to clean kitchen equipment maintained proper dilution levels to adequately disinfect kitchen equipment. The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include: On 5/22/23 at 11:45 AM, Staff D, Dietary Cook, wiped a food serving counter with a rag immersed in a sanitizing solution bucket. On 5/22/23 at 12:00 PM, Staff D, Dietary Cook, performed a sanitizing solution concentration check. She removed approximately two (2) inches of ribbon from a Hydrion QT-40 test strip case and submerged it into the sanitizing solution for six (6) seconds. She removed the strip from the solution and compared it to the reference chart on the back of the strip case. She verbalized the result was 0 parts-per-million (ppm). On 5/22/23 at 12:02 PM, Staff E, Dietary Cook, performed a sanitizing solution concentration check on a separate bucket. She removed approximately two (2) inches of ribbon from 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 · D2023-05-24 · tag F0943 — isolatedGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
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 personnel record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure all employees received education and training on what constitutes abuse and the facilities procedures for reporting incidents of abuse when 1 of 5 staff files (Staff B) reviewed did not complete; The State of Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Reporter Training, within the past three (3) years. The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include: Record review of Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant, staff file on [DATE] at 1:25 PM revealed her Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Training was completed on [DATE] and expired on [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:58 PM with the Administrator, she stated it was her expectation for all employees to be up to date on all training including Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Reporter Training. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:03 PM with the Director of Nursing, she stated it was her expectation 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.
“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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| STEGOTEK INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2017 |
| CONNER, ROBERT | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 12/01/2019 |
| WILKES, JAMES | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| STEGGERDA, JEFFREY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2017 |
| ALLEN, NATHAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2021 |
| HARPER, TIFFANY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/16/2020 |
| MCINTOSH, CARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/01/2016 |
| NORMAN, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/03/2011 |
| PEARSON, LORI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/15/2021 |
| SAXTON, ROSE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2014 |
| SHOWERS, DONALD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/15/2021 |
| BLUE STONE THERAPY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2023 |
| BRIGHTON CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| CATTAIL CONSULTING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/30/2022 |
| DAHM, KNAPP & ASSOCIATES PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2014 |
| DIGITAL STEW SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| GUARDIAN PHARMACY OF IOWA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/31/2021 |
| WESTVIEW ACRES CORP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2014 |
| BIRCHEM, PATRICIA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
8 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $8K 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 165252. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-05, 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.