Montezuma Specialty Care
316 Meadow Lane Drive, Montezuma, IA 50171 · Non profit - Corporation · 41 certified beds · (641) 219-4330 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 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 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.3% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.3% | 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 | 3.6% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.2% | 4.2% | 6.5% | worse |
| 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 | 12.9% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 34.7% | 20.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.5% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.9% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 27.4% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 2.1% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 10.4% | 20.9% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.2% | 13.2% | 12.0% | 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 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — 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 | 10.0%CMS range 7.1–18.0 | 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 | 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 | 86.4% | 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 | 9.1% | 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 | 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 | 1.13 | 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 41 beds and averages 30.3 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 11 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.30 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.83 is at or above 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 3.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.40 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.67 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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 · F2026-04-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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, clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain adequate kitchen sanitation for 2 of 2 observations of the kitchen. The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings: Observations on 4/21/2026 at 10:29 a.m. revealed the following concerns:a. Small plates and dishes placed face down in a cupboard covered with heavy crumbs.b. Cabinets on the left side and back wall of the kitchen sticky to the touch. The cabinets were partially covered with red and dark colored splatters and food debris.c. Styrofoam plates sat in a cupboard on a coating of heavy dust.d. Twelve large serving scoops sat in a layer of heavy crumbs and food debris in the 3rd drawer on the right of the entry door.e. Seven serving scoops sat in a layer of heavy crumbs and food debris in the 4th drawer on the right of the entry door.f. Multiple serving scoops sat in a layer of heavy crumbs in the 5th drawer on the right of the entry door.g. Fifteen plus slotted serving spoons sat in crumbs and red droplets in the 7th drawer on the right of the entry…
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 · D2026-04-23 · 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
Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to update the care plan to reflect a resident's exit seeking behavior for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for care plans (Resident #6). The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings included: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 12/19/25, listed diagnoses for Resident #6 which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, bipolar disorder, and depression. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 11 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The facility policy Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised December 2016, stated the care plan would incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems.An 8/8/25 Encounter Note stated the resident expressed a strong desire to leave the care facility.A 2/17/26 Nurses Note stated the resident reported to a family member that she tried to remove the window in her room so she could get out. Inspection of the window revealed the resident removed a screw from the window…
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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interviews and policy review, the facility staff failed to administer oxygen in accordance with physician orders for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 31 residents.The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #5 revealed a diagnosis of an irregular heart beat and identified the use of continuous oxygen therapy. Resident #5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. During an observation on 4/20/2026 at 2:18 pm, Resident #5 was in her recliner with oxygen (O2) tube in her nose, the oxygen concentrator was set on 1-liter, and she took deep breaths while relaxing in her recliner.During an observation on 4/21/2026 at 9:05 am, Resident #5 sat in the dining room for breakfast and the portable oxygen tank level indicator not to be in red area, which indicated the tank had an inadequate to no supply of oxygen. Resident #5 was unaware that the O2 tank was not…
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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility staff failed to hold the anticoagulant (blood thinning) medication as ordered by the surgeon that resulted in the delay of a scheduled surgery for 1 of 1 resident's reviewed (Resident #31). The facility reported a census of 31 residents.The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #31 revealed a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (a dysrhythmia of the heart) and received an anticoagulant. The Physician Orders for Resident #31 revealed an order for Apixaban (Eliquis) 5 milligram (mg) twice a day, Obtain X-ray of right knee and a referral to orthopedic doctor for a follow up on right knee pain and swelling. The X-ray results dated 3/30/26 for Resident #31revealed a dislocation of the knee joint and a bone fragment concerning for a fracture.A document titled Orthopedic Surgeons dated 4/3/26 for Resident #31 revealed the following:a. A surgical intervention would be necessary for the right dislocated knee.b. The blood thinner must be stopped five days before surgery or the patient can't have anesthesia.c.…
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 before2024-10-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, written staff statements, policy review, and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity for 4 out of 12 residents reviewed for dignity(Residents #6, #8, #11, #12). The facility reported a census of 28 residents. Findings: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 8/21/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #8 which included heart failure, diabetes, and anxiety. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Care Plan entries, dated 8/18/22, stated the resident had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to schizophrenia and directed staff to face her when speaking and keep her routine consistent in order to decrease confusion. 2. The MDS assessment tool, dated 7/15/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #12 which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, and depression. The MDS listed the resident's BIMS score as 12 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Care…
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 · E2024-10-03 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — patternAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, written staff statements, policy review, and staff and resident interviews, facility administration failed to follow-up on concerns with staff treatment of residents for 4 out of 12 residents reviewed for dignity (Residents #6, #8, #11, #12). The facility reported a census of 28 residents. Findings: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 8/21/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #8 which included heart failure, diabetes, and anxiety. The MDS listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Care Plan entries, dated 8/18/22, stated the resident had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to schizophrenia and directed staff to face her when speaking and keep her routine consistent in order to decrease confusion. 2. The MDS assessment tool, dated 7/15/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #12 which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, and depression. The MDS listed the resident's BIMS score as 12 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired…
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 · E2024-10-03 · 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 28 residents. Findings: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2567, dated 5/9/24, listed, in part, the following concern: F550. The current survey, conducted 10/1/24-10/3/24 also identified the above concern. Review of QAPI/QA documentation from 1/1/24 to 10/3/24 revealed the facility lacked documentation of QAPI/QA program activities related to resident treatment or dignity concerns. The facility lacked evidence of an ongoing QAPI program related to the above areas including a process of addressing how the committee would conduct the activities necessary to identify and correct…
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 · D2024-05-30 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the diet as ordered for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident #28). The facility did not provide double the protein for Resident #28 as recommended by the Registered Dietitian (RD) and as per the physician order. The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include: The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #28 revealed a diagnosis of hyponatremia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pulmonary embolism (blood clot in lung), and osteoarthritis. The MDS identified Resident #28 was at risk for the development of pressure injuries, and was on a therapeutic diet. Resident #28 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated an intact cognition. The Care Plan for Resident #28 directed staff to provide and serve the diet as ordered for a Nutritional Interventions Program (NIP) with double protein two times a day (BID) with initiated date of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-30 · 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
Based on observation, staff interview, resident interview and Facility Assessment the facility failed to ensure safe transport of resident in a wheelchair for 1 of 3 resident reviewed. (Resident #18). The facility reported a census of 31. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #18 dated 4/10/24 revealed resident scored 13 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognition intact. The MDS revealed diagnoses of arthritis, osteoporosis, cerebrovascular accident (CVA) referring to stroke and fracture of right humorous. The MDS documented the resident normally used a manual wheelchair for a mobility device, with dependence on staff to operate the wheelchair. The Care plan initiated 4/6/24 documented resident continued to work with therapy, recent fall with fractured humorous. Resident #18 to use a wheel chair for mobility, non-weight bearing to right upper extremity, sling to right upper extremity at all times and required assist of one related to recent fracture. Observation on 5/28/24 at 10:45 AM revealed Staff#C, Certified…
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 before2024-05-09 · 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, policy review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to treat 2 of 9 residents reviewed for resident rights with dignity (Resident #5 and #11) by failing to assist residents with the bedpan and/or incontinent care and instructing them to urinate/defecate in their incontinent briefs. The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include: 1. The admission Minimum Data Set(MDS) assessment tool, dated 4/24/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #5 which included tibia(a lower leg bone) fracture, weakness, and difficulty walking, and stated the resident required substantial/maximal assistance for toilet transfers and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene. The MDS listed her Brief Interview for Mental Status(BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. Care Plan entries, dated 4/18/24, stated the resident required the assistance of 1 staff for toileting and personal hygiene. A 4/19/24 1:38 p.m., Nurses Note documented the resident admitted to the facility following a right ankle fracture and would complete…
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 · D2024-05-09 · 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 clinical record review, policy review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse (a staff member allegedly failed to assist a resident with the bedpan and/or incontinent care and instructed her to urinate/defecate in her incontinent brief) for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for an allegation of abuse(Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings included: 1. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 4/24/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #5 which included tibia (a lower leg bone) fracture, weakness, and difficulty walking, and stated the resident required substantial/maximal assistance for toilet transfers and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene. The MDS listed her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Care Plan entries, dated 4/18/24, stated the resident required the assistance of 1 staff for toileting and personal hygiene. A 4/19/24 Nurses Note stated the resident admitted to the facility following a right ankle fracture 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 · D2024-05-09 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, policy review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of abuse (a staff member allegedly failed to assist a resident with the bedpan and/or incontinent care and instructed her to urinate/defecate in her incontinent brief) and ensure protection from further abuse for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for an allegation of abuse(Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set(MDS) assessment tool, dated 4/24/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #5 which included tibia(a lower leg bone) fracture, weakness, and difficulty walking, and stated the resident required substantial/maximal assistance for toilet transfers and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene. The MDS listed her Brief Interview for Mental Status(BIMS) score as 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Care Plan entries, dated 4/18/24, stated the resident required the assistance of 1 staff for toileting and personal hygiene. A 4/19/24 Nurses Note stated the resident admitted to the facility…
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 before2024-05-09 · 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, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to create interventions based on root cause analysis of falls in order to prevent future falls for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for falls(Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set(MDS) assessment tool, dated 2/9/24, listed diagnoses for Resident #4 which included pelvic fracture, non-Alzheimer's dementia, and heart failure, and stated the resident depended on staff for transfers and toilet transfers but did not walk due to a medical condition or safety concerns. The MDS documented the resident had a fracture related to a fall within the last 6 months and stated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS stated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. An untitled Hospital Report, dated 2/4/24, documented the resident sustained a fracture of the left greater trochanter(the upper part of the thigh bone) and a fracture 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARE INITIATIVES — 43 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARE INITIATIVES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2000 |
| COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST COMPANY, NA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| BEAL, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2020 |
| BOWEN, LANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| CAROTHERS, MARY JANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| CHILDS, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2023 |
| CORLESS, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| KREIN, KEITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/29/2022 |
| RUST, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| STURM, DENISE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| UPMEYER, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/29/2022 |
| DIXON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2016 |
| DRAKE, EMILY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/04/2023 |
| GILYARD, TANYA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/23/2025 |
| KUHN, JERAMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/25/2008 |
| MCDYER, JESSICA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/22/2023 |
| VOLM, JOHANNA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| BAEDKE, CHARISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| GIJIMA, DESIRE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| HUFF, MITCHELL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/24/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $273K 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 165295. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-23, 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.