No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Park Place

401 South Van Buren, Mount Pleasant, IA 52641 · Non profit - Corporation · 49 certified beds · (319) 385-6192 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (319) 385-6192 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citations — no harm found (F0609, F0610) — most recent May 2024Resident-funds citation (F0567)Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)1 actual-harm citation
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
Worth asking about
  • 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
  • it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
111 W Washington St · (319) 367-2241 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
501 S White St · (319) 385-6745 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
114 S Main St · (319) 385-7514 · Call to confirm hours
Park
401 S Van Buren St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
605 S Jackson St · (319) 385-8410

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased9.7%17.1%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight10.6%4.6%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder8.9%1.5%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.4%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%4.2%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.5%3.8%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened14.3%16.6%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication25.7%20.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.3%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers12.3%4.2%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control11.0%25.6%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table17.5%19.5%17.1%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.011.491.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.872.081.80typical

* 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.

0.01U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.01hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
<0.01hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.01 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 0% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 identifiednot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 dischargenot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. 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 staynot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFsnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

1.58
RN hours/ resident / day
0.08
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.65
Aide hours/ resident / day
5.31
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
1.09
RN hoursweekends
51.9%
Total nursing turnover
23.1%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 49 beds and averages 33.8 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 5.31 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.65 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.68 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.57 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.78 to 1.09 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-05-22)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-07-25)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2026-06-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions to prevent a fall with a major injury for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2) reviewed with a high fall risk. The facility reported a census of 34 residents.Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool dated 4/8/26, listed Resident #2 diagnoses, which included the presence of a left artificial knee joint, osteoarthritis (inflammation of the bones and joints), and heart failure. The MDS identified that the resident depended on staff for toileting hygiene, toilet transfers, and chair transfers. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicated intact cognition. The MDS listed an admission date of 12/29/23. The MDS documented Resident #1 discharged on 4/8/26 for a short-term hospital stay. Review of a hospital Discharge Noted dated 4/29/26, Summary of Events Leading to admission section revealed, in part.admitted to [name of hospital redacted] following…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-12-02 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
    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, facility policy review, family and staff interview, the facility to failed to ensure they held, managed, safeguarded and accounted for resident's personal funds entrusted in the care of facility staff for 2 of 4 residents sampled (Residents #1 and #4). The facility reported a census of 35. Findings include:1. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment resulted in a score of 5 out of 15, which indicated severely impaired cognition. The MDS list of diagnoses included Non-Alzheimer's dementia. The MDS indicated Resident #1 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Care Plan, dated 6/6/25, revealed a plan to address Cognitive Loss. During an interview on 11/24/25 at 10:45 AM, the Administrator reported Staff A, former Social Services Specialist worked at the facility from June 24, 2024 to October 17, 2025. The Administrator explained that within the scope of her position, Staff A made deposits 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-05-22 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — pattern
    Provide 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 observation, review of Resident Council Meeting minutes, review of Call Light Logs, clinical record review, resident, resident family member, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff responded to call lights within in 15 minutes for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for call lights (Residents #3, #15, #38, #14 and #18). The facility reported a census of 38 residents. Findings include: Review of April 2025 Resident Council Meeting minutes, dated 4/23/25, revealed the following comments: One resident mentioned that it seems as though the call light response times have improved, except on weekends. Another resident disagreed with the wait time improvement and remarked that she still has to wait for extended periods for her call light to be answered. 1. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #3 scored 12 out of 15 on a BIMS exam, which indicated a moderately impaired cognition. The MDS list of diagnoses included heart failure, stroke, and urine retention.…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-24 · tag F0660 — isolated
    Plan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs.
    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, receiving facility staff interview, and discharging staff interviews the facility failed to provide an accurate representation of a resident's behaviors and to ensure discharge needs are identified within the discharge planning process for one of one residents (Resident #1) reviewed. The facility reported census was 36. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], included an incomplete Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The BIMS is used to determine cognitive status. Section C, for Cognitive Patterns indicated Resident #1 had short term and long term memory problems, and moderate impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. Section E, for Behavior indicated Resident #1 wandered daily; and wandering significantly intruded on the privacy or activities of others. Section E indicated Resident #1 did not display hallucinations or delusions. The MDS documented Resident #1 independent with transfers and ambulation. The MDS list of diagnoses included:…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-25 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
    Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure timely follow-up completed in response to Medication Regimen Review recommendations for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #24). The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include: 1. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #24 dated 5/15/24 revealed the resident was rarely to never understood, and took hypnotic medication. The Care Plan dated 10/1/23 titled LTC Psychotropic Medication Use revealed the following intervention: Monitor for adverse reactions r/t (related to) temazepam, quetipine, trazodone. The Physician Order First Dose Date/Time dated 12/4/2023 at 9:00 PM revealed an order for Temazepam 7.5 mg (milligram) oral cap at HS (night). Review of the Phone Message/Call Note dated 3/31/24 at 3:59 PM revealed, in part, the following: In December, the dose of temazepam was successfully decreased to 7.5 mg daily at bedtime. There have been some behaviors during the day time with agitation and crying and it…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-25 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the clinical record review, interviews, and the facility policy, the facility failed to implement interventions prior to the administration of an antianxiety medication, and failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction for a resident on an antidepressant for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #19 and Resident #21). The facility reported a census 34 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #19 was rarely or never understood. The MDS revealed the resident wandered 4 to 6 days out of the last 14 day look back period. The MDS revealed the resident took antipsychotics, antianxiety, and antidepressants. The Care Plan, initiated on 6/10/24, for LTC Behavioral Symptoms IPOC (Interdisplinary Plan of Care) included Interventions to: provide care with smile, gentle touch, voice, reassurance; evaluate for signs of pain during care and intervene prior to giving care; evaluate usual time, duration, and frequency of behavior, evaluate…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0557 — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
    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 provide transfers using mechanical lifts in a dignified, and respectful manner for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1 and Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/14/24, revealed Resident #1 scored a 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, indicating intact cognition. The MDS revealed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance with lying to sitting on the side of the bed and chair/bed to chair transfers. The MDS revealed the resident required partial/moderate assistance with rolling from left to right and sitting to lying. The MDS revealed medical diagnoses of generalized muscle weakness and cerebral vascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic attack (TIA), or stroke. The Care Plan revealed a focus area for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) mobility dated 9/22/23. The interventions (no date provided) included providing assistance to support level of need; encouraging,…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 interview, the facility failed to report a staff to resident alleged assault within the required 24 hour time frame for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include: A review of a Facility Reported Incident revealed a submission date of 4/12/24 at 4:02 PM for an allegation of abuse that occurred on 4/9/24 at approximately 1:00 PM. The incident summary revealed Staff A, CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) came to the DON (Director of Nursing) on 4/9/24 and stated that during a transfer she observed Staff C, CNA grab the resident by the waist band and pull him up from the wheelchair. She stated once the paddles [two paddles that when lowered form a seat] on the lift were in place, Staff C let go of the resident and then he flopped down onto the paddles [seat]. When transferring Resident #1 to bed, Staff C told the resident to stand up. Resident #1 stated he was trying and to give him a minute. Staff C then leaned forward and grabbed the resident by the pockets of his pants to stand…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-16 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond 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 staff interviews the facility failed to thoroughly investigate a staff to resident alleged abuse for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 34 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/14/24, revealed Resident #1 scored a 14 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS revealed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance with lying to sitting on the side of the bed and chair/bed to chair transfers. The MDS revealed the resident required partial/moderate assistance with rolling from left to right and sitting to lying. The MDS revealed medical diagnoses of generalized muscle weakness and cerebral vascular accident (CVA), transient ischemic attack (TIA), or stroke. The Care Plan revealed a focus area for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) mobility dated 9/22/23. The interventions (no date provided) included providing assistance to support level of need; encouraged, cued, and prompted 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-07-31 · tag F0837 — widespread
    Establish a governing body that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies for managing and operating the facility and appoints a properly licensed administrator responsible for managing the facility.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview, record review, facility job description review, the facility failed to ensure the Administrator was appropriately licensed to act as the Administrator for the facility. The facility reported a census of 31. During the entrance conference on 7/24/23 at 11:12 AM, the DON (Director of Nursing) stated the Administrator was currently at the other facility she managed and wouldn't make it to this facility today. During an interview on 7/26/23 at 9:25 AM, the Administrator queried to supply a copy of her license and she stated she didn't have a license, she had a provisional license for the other facility (not facility surveyed at present time). She stated she was in the process of getting a waiver. The Administrator asked if when she took the Administrator position she would be managing both facilities and she stated yes. She stated the provisional license couldn't be used for both facilities and the provisional license was issued for the other facility. She stated she applied for the waiver and if all else failed someone at this facility needed to get a provisional…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a focus care area for diabetes on the care plan for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for care planning development (Resident #10). The facility reported a census of 31. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #10 scored 5 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated severe cognition impairment. The MDS revealed a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM). The MDS documented the resident received insulin injections 7 out of 7 days. The Care Plan with initiated date of 4/4/23 lacked documentation of a focused care area and interventions for the diagnosis of DM. The Electronic Medical Record revealed a diagnosis of Type II DM without complications dated 4/4/23. The Physician Orders revealed the following orders: a. Lantus 100 units/ml (milliliter) solution insulin vial- Inject 12 units subcutaneously once daily ordered on 4/4/23 b. Metformin 1000 mg (milligram) tablet-…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-07-31 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    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 interview and record review, the facility failed to respond timely to address and treat a resident's symptoms of a urinary tract infection (UTI) for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for urinary tract infections (Resident #17). The facility reported a census of 31. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 scored 15 out of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated cognitively intact. The MDS documented the resident always continent of urine. The MDS revealed the resident a UTI in the last 30 days. The MDS revealed the resident received an antibiotic 5 out of 7 days. The Care Plan revealed a focus care area dated 7/11/23 of a history of UTIs leading to hospitalization if not treated promptly. The interventions dated 7/11/23 revealed the resident and family chose to opt out of the UTI protocol and wanted the provider notified as soon as symptoms were reported. The Progress Note dated 7/4/2023 at 11:07 AM revealed the resident…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-31 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement timely interventions and provide adequate supervision for residents with a history of falls and a resident with a history of wandering behavior for two of four residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #18, Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include: 1A. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #18 dated dated 4/26/23 and 7/19/23 revealed Resident #18 had severely impaired cognition. Per the MDS dated [DATE] the resident had wandered one to three days during the look back period, and the MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident and had wandered four to six days but less than daily. The Care Plan for Resident #18 dated 7/30/20 revised on 4/13/22 revealed, [Resident #18] has impaired cognitive function r/t (related to) dementia. She displays short and long term memory loss, disorientation to time, place and situation, confusion and impaired communication/difficulty finding words and/or…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-31 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to consistently document non-pharmacological interventions attempted prior to the administration of as needed antianxiety medication for one of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident #19). The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include: Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #19 dated 6/21/23 revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition. Per this assessment, Resident #19 had received antianxiety medication for four of the last seven days. The Care Plan dated 10/15/20 revised on 8/4/21 documented, [Resident #19] receives psychotropic medications (Seroquel) r/t (related to) increased aggression secondary to dementia and subarachnoid hemorrhage secondary to fall prior to admission. The Physician Order dated 6/30/23 documented, Lorazepam Tab 0.5MG (Milligram), also known as Ativan, an antianxiety medication, with instruction for 1 tablet by mouth twice daily as needed for anxiety/agitation for 90 days (6/30-9/28/23) for Anxiety disorder,…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
BENDER, REBECCAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2025
BLAKE, BRADENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2025
MAHER, KARLAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2025
MCNAMEE, CARLAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
PROTTSMAN, JOELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2025
WELCHER, MICHAELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2025
WILLIAMS-LOWE, BRANDYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
YODER, CHARLESIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 06/18/2025
ARAMARK HEALTHCARE SUPPORT SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/23/2025
GREAT RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/15/2025
BARR, DEANNAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/23/2025
COTTON, CYNTHIAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
ENGBERG, ROBERTIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/23/2025
HOLLENBECK, MICKIEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
KLOPFENSTEIN, MARYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
MALCOM, WILLIAMIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/23/2025
MARTIN, DOUGLASIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/23/2025
MCCOY, MICHAELIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
MCKILLIP, JOHNIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/23/2025
POPE, TARAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
RYON, JOELIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
EIDE BAILLY LLPOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 39 rows in the source record cover these 22 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.

3 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.

What families pay in IA

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Iowa
$9,277/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,038/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,381/mo
Assisted living

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 165147. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-22, 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.

What to do next