Oakview Nursing & Rehablitation - Marion
720 Oakbrooko, Marion, IA 52302 · For profit - Individual · 40 certified beds · (319) 390-8439 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (22% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2024
- 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
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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 improved from 2 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 | 17.3% | 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 | 1.0% | 1.5% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.7% | 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 | 4.3% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 26.5% | 16.6% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.8% | 20.8% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.7% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.0% | 19.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.8% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 73.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 10.6% | 20.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 19.3% | 13.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.34 | 1.49 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.32 | 2.08 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
35.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 65 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 63.2% 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 38 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 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 35.6%CMS range 28.5–46.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.4%CMS range 7.3–16.9 | 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 | 63.2% | 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 | 71.0% | 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 | 63.2% | 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 | 97.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.4%CMS range 3.2–12.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.86 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 40 beds and averages 37.9 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 2 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 3.95 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.68 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.447 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 3.37 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.18 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.58 to 0.95 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, facility documentation, interviews, and policy review the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with section 1150B of the Act. A Certified Nurse's Aide (CNA) and a nurse became aware of allegations of abuse and did not report to facility management or the designated state agency. When the facility became aware of an allegation of abuse, they didn't report it to the state agency in a timely manner for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #2). The facility reported a census of 39 residents.Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #2 dated 11/20/25 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15 indicated intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of multiple sclerosis ( MS, an autoimmune disease that affects the nerves that effects coordination, memory, and emotions), dysarthria (speech disorder caused by muscle weakness), and anarthria (motor speech disorders affecting muscle control), and chronic pain. 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 · D2025-08-21 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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, interviews, and the Medicare Claims Processing Manual the facility failed to provide residents ending skilled care with current Advanced Beneficiary Notice (ABN) and Notice of Medicare Non Coverage (NOMNC) documents for 3 of 3 residents reviewed (Residents #22, #41, #42). The facility reported a census of 36.Findings include: 1) The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #22 documented an admission date of 4/17/25 and a Medicare end date of 5/5/25. A document titled Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) for the resident was signed by their representative on 5/2/25. The document footnote was Form CMS 10123-NOMNC (approved 12/31/2011). A document titled Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNFABN) for the resident was signed by their representative on 5/2/25. The document footnote was Form CMS-10055 (2018). 2) The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #41 documented an admission date of 5/5/25 and a discharge date of 6/3/25. A document…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-26 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to prevent one resident from wandering into another resident room and putting their hand on a resident for 1 out of 6 residents reviewed (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 29 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], listed diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia, and stroke. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 (severe cognitive impairments). The MDS revealed Resident #1 showed verbal and physical behavior towards others on 1-3 days of the look back period. The MDS reflected Resident#1 wandered 2-6 days in the look back period. The Care Plan dated 3/11/25, identified Resident #1 had impaired cognition related/to dementia. Cue, reorient and supervise as needed. The Care Plan dated 3/14/25, identified Resident #1's physical and verbal behavioral symptoms toward others (e.g. hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching). The Care Plan listed a goal 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 · E2024-08-15 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to hold hot foods at an adequate minimum temperature for 1 of 1 meal service observed. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: The 2/24 facility Dietary Policies and Procedures with the subject of Food Temperatures stated the minimum temperature of hot foods was 135 degrees Fahrenheit. On 8/13/24 at 12:29 p.m., Staff D Dietary Aide served the last meal in the B Wing. Immediately after the service, he obtained the following temperatures: Sweet potatoes 119 degrees Fahrenheit Green Beans 120 degrees Fahrenheit Pork 130 degrees Fahrenheit. Pureed meatballs 96 degrees Fahrenheit. Pureed sweet potatoes 99 degrees Fahrenheit. Gravy 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Pureed green beans 108 degrees Fahrenheit. On 8/14/24 at 9:51 a.m. the Dietary Manager stated hot food should be held at a minimum temperature of 135 degrees Fahrenheit. She stated she stood around the corner while Staff D obtained the temperatures on 8/13/24. She stated the facility would order more lids and cover the food in order to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to store and prepare food under sanitary conditions for 3 of 3 kitchen areas reviewed. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: The facility undated [name redacted(name of detergent company)] Detergent Services policy stated (dishwasher) rinse temperatures should reach between 176 degrees Fahrenheit to 185 degrees Fahrenheit. The 2/24 facility Dietary Policies and Procedures with the subject of Good Safety and Sanitation Guidelines stated the facility would utilize the current food code for standards of practice for the dietary department to meet the needs of safe food handling and sanitation of the kitchen. The 2/24 facility Dietary Policies and Procedures with the subject of Personal Hygiene stated food service employees must wear a hair restraint to effectively keep hair from coming in contact with exposed food or clean equipment. The facility 8/14/24 Kitchenette Daily Cleaning List included direction for staff to clean the microwave and refrigerator. The initial main kitchen…
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 · E2024-08-15 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — patternHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement(QAPI) meeting documentation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to carry out Quality Assurance(QA) activities to obtain feedback, use data, and take action to conduct structured, systematic investigations and analysis of underlying causes or contributing factors of problems affecting facility-wide processes that impact quality of care, quality of life, and resident safety. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) 2567, dated 2/15/24, listed, in part, the following concerns: F812 QAPI Sign-In Sheets documented the facility had QAPI meetings on the following dates: 4/19/24 and 7/26/24. The current survey, conducted 8/12/24-8/15/24 also identified the above concern. The undated facility QAPI Plan stated the facility would address key issues to continuously improve services. The plan stated the QAA committee would prioritize areas that were problem-prone. On 8/15/24 at 8:59 am., the Administrator stated with regard to QA…
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 before2024-08-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure dignity was provided to residents with catheters by not placing the catheter bags in dignity bags for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for catheters (Residents #8 and #143). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: 1. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #8 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 13 indicating intact cognition. The MDS further documented the resident had diagnoses including neurogenic bladder, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and diabetes mellitus. The resident required assistance of staff for toileting, personal hygiene, bathing, and transfers. She had an indwelling catheter and was frequently incontinent of bowel. The Care Plan dated 7/3/24 revealed a focus area for Resident #8's need for an indwelling urinary catheter related to a neurogenic bladder with a goal the resident's catheter care would be managed…
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 · D2024-08-15 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free of physical abuse when a staff member hit a resident on the shoulder for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for abuse(Resident #23). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 6/13/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #23 which included diabetes, non-Alzheimer's dementia, and morbid obesity. The MDS stated the resident required substantial to maximal assistance for dressing and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, showering, and transfers. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status Score (BIMS) as 6 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The Nursing Facility Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy, dated July 2019, stated all residents had the right to be free from abuse and defined physical abuse to include hitting and slapping. Care Plan entries, dated 1/30/23, stated the resident had verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure sanitary conditions of a food service area, failed to monitor and record resident refrigerator temperatures according to facility schedule, failed to ensure all staff entering kitchenettes wore a hair covering during food service, and failed to cover all food and drinks transported through the hallway to resident rooms to prevent contamination. The facility further failed to serve one resident, on a pureed texture diet, all menu items when side dish and dessert were omitted for 1 of 1 meal services observed. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings Include: On 2/12/24 at 10:40 AM, observation of the C-Wing kitchenette refrigerator, which contained resident food and drinks, noted with splatters of liquid and crumbs collected on shelves. A log of refrigerator temperatures located on the outside of the kitchenette refrigerator had various shifts and entire days without a temperature recording. The steam table lids had spots of crusted food, water spots, and crumbs across…
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 · E2024-02-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to cover clean linen carts in compliance with infection control protocol while transported through 2 of 2 hallways. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings include: 1. On 2/12/24 from 2:10 PM to 2:35 PM, observed a clean linen cart, with all but one side covered, being pushed through C-Wing Hallway as various staff passed through the area. Noted inside the cart were folded bed pads, clean sheets, and towels. The clean linen cart pushed by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) from room to room as it remained uncovered and frequently left unattended throughout the 25 minutes of continuous observation. On 2/13/24 from 2:28 PM to 2:47 PM, observed a clean linen cart with all but one side covered, pushed through C-Wing Hallway as various staff passed through the area. The exposed side contained clean folded bed pads, wash clothes, and towels. The clean linen cart pushed by a CNA from room to room, remained uncovered and frequently left unattended throughout 19 minutes of continuous…
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 before2024-02-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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, observations, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to serve 2 out of 16 resident in the dining room (DR) in a dignified manner when meals served on trays (Residents # 12 and 17). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings Include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #12 dated 12/21/23, included diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease, and anxiety disorder. The MDS showed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 out of 15, indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #12 required partial or moderate assistance for eating. The Care Plan for Resident 12 dated 7/7/23, directed to provide adaptive equipment per the dietary list. The Dietary Seating Chart dated 2/6/24, failed to include a tray for Resident #12 while eating. 2. The MDS Assessment for Resident #17 dated 2/1/24, included diagnoses of non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The MDS showed short and long term memory problems, severely impaired decision making skills.…
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 · D2024-02-15 · 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 Assessment Tool review, the facility failed to include anti-depressant and diuretic medications in Care Plan for one of five residents (Resident #2) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings Include: The Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated February 2024, revealed current orders for Furosemide (diuretic) 40 milligrams (mg) one tablet daily for Chronic Diastolic Heart Failure, initiated on 11/28/23, and Trazodone (antidepressant) 50 mg one tablet at bedtime for generalized anxiety disorder, initiated on 11/27/23. The Care Plan, revised on 2/12/24, lacked a focus areas to inform care needs and the side effects related to anti-depressant and diuretic medications. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #2 required both anti-depressant and diuretic medications. Diagnoses included: Heart failure and anxiety disorder. On 1/15/24 at 1:15 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON)…
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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observations, resident interview, and Call Light Log review, the facility failed to answer resident call lights in a timely manner resulting in long wait times for 2 of 39 residents reviewed for call light response time (Residents #1 and #3). The facility reported a census of 39 residents. Findings Include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 (intact cognition). Resident required substantial/maximal staff assistance for transfers and dependence on staff for toileting hygiene. Resident #3 diagnoses included: End Stage Renal Disease, Neurogenic bladder, arthritis, seizure disorder, anxiety disorder, and depression. The Care Plan, revised on 01/03/24, revealed focused areas related to risk of falling and deterioration in ability to perform activities of daily living. On 2/12/24 at 10:57 AM, Resident #3 reported waiting a long time for help in the mornings and stated it often took greater than 15…
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| THE VIEWS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| ARP SAMPLE, SUSAN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/01/2019 |
| BAUMHOEFENER, JOHN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/01/2019 |
| DANCER, JULIE | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/19/2019 |
| LARSON, EDGAR | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/01/2019 |
| PIETRZAK, MICHAEL | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/01/2019 |
| PRUETT, JOHN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | since 04/15/2010 |
| ROYER, KEVIN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/01/2019 |
| SHOWERS, JOSEPH | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 09/01/2019 |
| CAMBRIDGE REALTY CAPITAL LTD OF ILLINOIS | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| BATTERTON, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/13/2021 |
| TAEGER, VINCENT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2019 |
| URBAIN, DALLAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/22/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 13 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.
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.
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 165626. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-21, 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.