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

Wesley Park Centre

500 First Street North, Newton, IA 50208 · Non profit - Corporation · 66 certified beds · (641) 791-5000 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (641) 791-5000 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$17,345 in federal fines
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)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $17,345 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-28)
  • 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
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
300 N 4th Ave E · (641) 792-2112 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
212 1st St N · (641) 792-3528 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
120 N 3rd Ave E · (641) 792-7950 · Call to confirm hours
Park
110 N 6th Ave E · (641) 792-1470 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
314 E 2nd St N · (641) 792-5850

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 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating4★
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 increased23.9%17.1%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.7%4.6%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection4.9%2.4%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.1%4.2%6.5%better
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 injury5.7%3.8%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened18.6%16.6%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication21.0%20.8%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine91.7%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers9.0%4.2%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control27.9%25.6%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table17.8%19.5%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.6%2.1%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine44.2%73.3%79.4%worse
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission14.3%20.9%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit13.7%13.2%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.101.491.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.192.081.80worse

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.

59.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 107 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

59.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.6%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
75.9%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.25U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.11hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.12hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 75.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 54 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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 SNF59.0%CMS range 50.8–66.551.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.6%CMS range 7.0–14.710.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge75.9%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge83.3%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge70.4%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified88.3%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting79.3%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened8.3%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.0%CMS range 3.4–11.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.921.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

1.02
RN hours/ resident / day
0.73
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.43
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.19
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.80
RN hoursweekends
35.2%
Total nursing turnover
29.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 66 beds and averages 60.7 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.19 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.02 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.43 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 3.74 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.36 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.11 to 0.80 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-01-28)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2025-01-28)

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.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-28 · 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 record and document review, staff and family interviews, the facility failed to follow Physical Therapy recommendations regarding the ambulation status for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls (Resident #61). Resident #61 was to be an assist of 2, on [DATE] Resident #61 was only provided an assist of 1 which resulted in a fall. Resident #61 was transferred to a tertiary hospital and diagnosed with a right femur fracture that required surgery on [DATE]. Following surgery, Resident #61 was placed in intensive care and subsequently died on [DATE]. The Death Certificate revealed manner of death: complications of femur fracture due to or as a consequence of ground level fall.The facility reported a census of 65 residents. The facility was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on [DATE] for the immediacy which began on [DATE]. On [DATE], the surveyor reviewed and confirmed the prior actions taken by the facility based upon their investigation were implemented. Therefore, it was determined the IJ was lifted…

    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 · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · G2025-01-28 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, resident, family and staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to accurately assess and prevent a pressure wound to 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #54). The nursing staff identified a pressure wound caused by the Ankle/Foot Orthotic (AFO) splint to right foot and continued to utilize the AFO for transfers, resulting in a wound that needed a higher level of treatment. The facility reported a census of 65 residents. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #54 revealed a diagnosis of a Stroke with aphasia (difficulty speaking) and right sided hemiplegia (paralysis), Diabetes Mellitus and end stage renal disease and received hemodialysis via the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) access (a long, flexible tube inserted into a vein in the arm). The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) revealed a score of 14 which suggested an intact cognition. The MDS documented that the resident was at…

    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 · E2026-01-28 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — pattern
    Provide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff were competent with dishwashing temperature checking procedures. The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include:On 1/25/26 at 10:45 AM, an observation of three (3) dishwashing cycles revealed the rinse-water temperature gauge reached 171 degrees Fahrenheit (deg F) during all three observations. At 10:51 AM, Staff B, dishwasher, was asked to perform a dishwasher temperature check (procedure which uses a color-changing, temperature sensitive strip to confirm the dishwasher rinse-cycle water temperature reaches the required 180 deg F). Staff B stated he did not know how to perform the test because he never learned how to do it.At 11:03 AM, Staff B informed Staff E, dishwasher, that a dishwasher temperature check was requested. Staff E asked Staff B where the test strips were located. Staff B stated he did not know and both Staff B and Staff E searched for the strips. Staff E located the strips hanging in front of the dishwasher temperature check binder stored on 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure 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, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to properly store food in the kitchen, failed to discard a can of damaged applesauce, failed to wear hairnets while in the kitchen, and failed to prevent food contamination by placing a non-food soup bowl in direct contact with a resident's food. The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include:On 1/25/26 at 10:03 AM, Staff A, Cook, was observed in the main kitchen without a hair net.At 10:18 AM, Staff A was observed wearing a hair net.The following items were observed in the refrigerators during the initial kitchen tour: An unlabeled, undated, bowl of green, leafy itemsAn unlabeled, undated, bowl of mixed fruit-like itemsA partially uncovered pan of bacon dated 1/24/26A partially uncovered braised pork dated 1/23/26A partially uncovered, unlabeled, and undated pan of tube-shaped meat.An undated, opened box of lettuceAn unlabeled, clear sealable bag of shredded, orange substanceAn undated, unlabeled pan of brown crust with a yellow topping The following items were observed in the freezer…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-28 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent a urinary tract infection for 1 of 1 resident (#56). The facility reported a census of 61 residents. Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for Resident #56 dated 11/20/25 revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of coronary artery disease (disease of the heart arteries), high blood pressure, a stroke, and a urinary tract infection (UTI). It indicated he was independent with rolling from left-to-right in bed, required setup assistance with eating and oral and personal hygiene, required moderate assistance with upper body dressing and sit-to-lying and lying-to-sitting, and was dependent with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and mobility. It also indicated he had a UTI within the previous 30 days.A laboratory report dated 11/01/25 confirmed the resident's urine specimen…

    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 · E2025-01-28 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, policy review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure hot foods were held at an appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 meal observed and for 2 of 24 residents reviewed (Residents #48 and #163). The facility reported a census of 65 residents. Findings include: 1. An observation prior to the start of the lunch service on 1/22/25, Staff A [NAME] obtained the following temperatures: grilled ham and cheese sandwiches 151.6 F at 11:53 a.m. meat sauce 162.6 F at 11:56 a.m. noodles 172.6 F at 11:59 a.m. mashed potatoes 160.4 F at 11:58 a.m. pureed vegetables 132.2 at 12:01 p.m. Staff A did not heat up the pureed vegetables prior to the start of service. Staff A served the first tray at 12:10 p.m. and the last tray at 12:55 p.m. Immediately after staff served the last tray, the State Agency requested a test tray. The State Agency obtained the following temperatures with a facility provided thermometer. The Certified Dietary Manager was present during this process. grilled ham…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure staff prepared food under sanitary conditions for 2 of 2 kitchen observations. The facility reported a census of 65 residents. Findings include: During the initial kitchen tour on 1/21/25 at 9:46 a.m., dust particles hung from 8 of 8 fire suppression spigots. Two string-like particles of dust, approximately 2 inches in length, hung down from the spigot on the left side of the stove hood, located directly above a pot of boiling food. During a follow-up visit to the kitchen on 1/22/25 at 10:59 a.m., dust remained on the spigots of the fire suppression system. The metal surface behind the tilt skillet also contained a thick layer of dust particles. The undated facility Night [NAME] Closing List and Morning [NAME] Checklist did not include direction for staff to clean the fire suppression system spigots. The facility policy Food Safety, revised July 2024, directed staff to monitor the risk of contamination during cooking, cooling, holding, and reheating. On 1/23/24 at 9:35 a.m., the Certified Dietary…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-28 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide dignity with care by turning off the call light and leaving the room without ensuring the resident's needs were met for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for dignity (Resident #54). The facility reported a census of 65 residents. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #54 revealed a diagnosis of a Stroke with aphasia (difficulty speaking) and right sided hemiplegia (paralysis), Diabetes Mellitus, and required the assistance of 2 for repositioning in bed. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 14 which suggested an intact cognition. The Care Plan for Resident #54 directed staff to allow adequate time to respond when communicating, and repeat if necessary or request clarification from the resident to ensure understanding and required the assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility, toileting and transfers. During an observation on 1/21/25 at 3:39 PM Resident #54 was in a…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-28 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolated
    Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
    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, policy review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure water temperatures at points of delivery did not exceed safe maximum temperatures for 4 of 6 resident room sinks and for 1 of 3 shower rooms. The facility reported a census of 65 residents. Findings Include: Temperature readings obtained by the State Agency on 1/22/25 revealed the following concerns: 8:15 a.m. room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom sink 127.7 F(Fahrenheit) 8:20 a.m. room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom sink 126.4 F 8:26 a.m. South Sunset Shower room [ROOM NUMBER].4 F 8:38 a.m. room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom sink 125.4 F 8:42 a.m. room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom sink 121.6 F Temperature readings obtained by Staff B Maintenance Staff on 1/22/25 revealed the following concerns: 8:49 a.m. room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom sink 125.2 F. Staff B stated that's not good while he obtained this temperature. 8:52 a.m. room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom sink 124.5 F. After the temperature measurements, Staff B stated water temps should be less than 120 F 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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-21 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interview, resident interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure resident call light within reach for 1 of 21 residents reviewed (Resident #22). The facility reported the census is 64. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #22 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 8 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnosis to include heart disease, renal disease, dementia, anxiety and stroke or transient ischemic attack. The Care Plan included intervention initiated 3/19/24 for Resident #22, documented resident often times places call light pendant in small places and unable to recall location. Resident #22 does have wall pendant in place and able to verbalize needs to staff. Care plan focus initiated 1/15/24 included, Resident #22 is at risk for falls related to dementia, hallucinations, insomnia, and possible medication side effects. Interventions included Resident #22 encouraged 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.

    Resident Rights 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

$17,345 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-01-28

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to WESLEYLIFE — 10 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.8+0.2 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.2-0.2 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 54.4+0.6 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.7-0.7 vs chain
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, per CMS)

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
WESLEYLIFEOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 09/21/2010
KRETZINGER, ROBERTIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/11/1996
ALBERTSON, KERMITIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2018
GILROY, ABBEYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2016
HOEKSEMA, NICOLEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/01/2021
LAGREE, ROGERIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2015
RASMUSSEN, CHADIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2011
RUCH, ROBERTIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/08/2004
STOUT, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2011
TAYLOR, CHRISTINAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2018
WATSON, SUSANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2014
WESLEY RETIREMENT SERVICES INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/08/1992

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.

$7.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-64.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$803K
Related-party expense6% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 42%Medicare 10%Other / private 48%

This home reported $803K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

$583per resident / day
operating cost
$17,712per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$354per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

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 165543. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-28, 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