Prairie Ridge Care Center
1005 7th Street NE, Orange City, IA 51041 · Government - City/county · 95 certified beds · (712) 707-6006 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.2% | 17.1% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.3% | 4.6% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 1.5% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.8% | 2.4% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.0% | 4.2% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.8% | 3.8% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.9% | 16.6% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.8% | 20.8% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.3% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.6% | 25.6% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.0% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.28 | 1.49 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.46 | 2.08 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.06 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 3% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The 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 SNF | not 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 discharge | not 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 discharge | not 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 discharge | not 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 identified | not 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 setting | not 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 discharge | not 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 stay | not 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 worsened | not 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 hospitalization | not 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 SNFs | not 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 95 beds and averages 80.6 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.91 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.66 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 3.60 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.03 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-18 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on clinical record review, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to document non-pharmacological interventions prior to administering anti-anxiety medication for anxiety and/or agitation for 1 of 1 resident sampled (Resident #60). The facility identified a census of 80 residents. Findings include: Resident #60's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2026 documented Lorazepam (an anti-anxiety medication) 0.5 milligrams (mg). Administer three times a day as needed for agitation. The MAR further documented the nurse administered Lorazepam 10 times during the month. The supplemental documentation lacked documentation of nonpharmacological interventions tried prior to administering Lorazepam. Resident #60's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for May 2026 documented Lorazepam (an anti-anxiety medication) 0.5 milligrams (mg). Administer three times a day as needed for agitation. The MAR further documented the nurse administered Lorazepam 5 times during the month. The supplemental documentation lacked documentation of nonpharmacological interventions…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-18 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to represent an accurate picture of the resident's status during the observation period of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #2, and #7) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 80 residents. Findings include:1. Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed diagnoses of coronary artery disease, stroke, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The MDS further indicated Resident #2 received diuretic medications for 7 of the 7 days during the look back period. Review of Resident #2's Electronic Healthcare Record (EHR) page titled, Active Orders revealed no order for diuretic medication.Interview 6/16/26 at 11:00 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that Resident #2 is currently not on diuretic medication. Follow up interview 6/16/26 at 11:25 AM with the DON revealed that Resident #2 was never on diuretic medications, and this should not have been on the MDS. The DON further…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-18 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to refer resident with a negative Level I result for the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), who was later identified with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or other related condition, to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASARR evaluation and determination for 1 out of 1 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for PASARR requirements. The facility reported a census of 80 residents.Findings include:The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented diagnoses of anxiety, major depressive disorder with severe psychotic symptoms, psychotic disorder, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Review of the EHR page titled, Current ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases 10th revision) revealed diagnoses of:A. major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic symptoms with a diagnosis date of 10/2/24. B. Post traumatic stress 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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-24 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review and staff interview the facility failed to identify non-pharmacological interventions, targeted behaviors and side effects related to high risk medications in 5 out of 18 sampled residents reviewed (Resident #13, #21, #25, #32 and #44). The facility reported a census of 83 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #21 documented diagnoses of anxiety disorder and depression. The MDS showed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of Active Orders for Resident #21 revealed the following orders: a. Celexa (antidepressant medication) 20 milligrams (mg) daily with an order date of 2/27/25 b. Remeron (antidepressant medication) 45 mg daily with an order date of 10/15/24 c. Zyprexa (antipsychotic medication) 7.5 mg with an order date of 5/31/24 Review of the April Medication Administration Record for Resident #21 revealed the following orders: a. Celexa…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-24 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the 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 observation, policy review, document review and staff interview the facility failed to follow the menu and prepare food to meet the nutritional needs for 25 of 83 residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 83 residents. Findings include: Continuous observation of lunch meal service on 4/23/25 from 11:35 AM - 12:00 PM revealed no bread or margarine served to the residents that resided at [NAME] Run Cottage. Review of document titled, Diets revealed 25 residents resided at [NAME] Run Cottage. Review of document titled, facility Fall / Winter 2024-2025 Wednesday Week 1 Menu documented bread and margarine to be served at lunch meal. On 4/23/25 at 12:07 PM Staff D, Assistant Activities Director stated she took the lunch menu that was on the sign to all the residents and wrote what the residents wanted down on a piece of paper. Staff D acknowledged there was no bread on the menu sign and bread was not offered to any of the residents. Staff D explained if bread is sent down from the kitchen it would…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to prepare food in accordance with professional standards by not completing appropriate hand hygiene during meal preparation. The facility reported a census of 83 residents. Findings include: An observation on 4/23/25 at 9:00 AM revealed Staff E, [NAME] completed hand hygiene, obtained 5 portions of Swiss steak from the oven, placed them in them the processor, mechanical soft Swiss steaks removed from food processor and measured to 3 cups, reviewed puree sheet, serving sized determined to be #8. Staff E obtained 5 bowels from the cabinet and placed her ungloved fingers into 3 bowls and two ungloved fingers into 2 bowls with the other hand. Staff E used a #8 scoop to serve mechanical food in 5 bowls, bowls were placed in the microwave, the bowls were heated, the bowls were removed from the microwave, the bowls were placed in the steam table pan and the pan placed in the oven. Then 3 servings of Swiss steak were obtained from the pan, Swiss steak placed in food processor, food processor was turned on, Swiss…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide appropriate infection prevention practices when providing personal care to a resident and when providing care to a residents on enhanced barrier precautions (EBH) for 4 of 12 residents reviewed (Resident #15, #27, #33 and #45). The facility reported a census of 83 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #33 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 13 indicating no cognitive impairment. The MDS also documented Resident #33 utilized a suprapubic catheter and had a stage 2 pressure ulcer. Review of Resident #33's Physician Orders documented an order to change suprapubic catheter with an 18 fr with 10mL balloon to straight drainage every 3 weeks and PRN. Change monthly on the 6th. An observation on 4/22/25 at 9:00 AM revealed Staff H, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Staff I, Registered Nurse (RN) completing cares and a transfer with Resident #33.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-24 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure 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, resident interview, staff interview, resident council notes, and policy review the facility failed to provide food at an appetizing temperature to 1 of 20 residents reviewed (Resident #17). The facility reported a census of 83 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #17 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. On 4/21/25 at 3:18 PM Resident #17 stated the food was sometimes served cold but less than weekly. An observation on 4/23/25 at 11:35 AM revealed lunch was delivered to [NAME] Run Cottage. Staff D, Assistant Activities Director served the lunch meal. Lunch services were completed at 12:00 PM and temperatures were obtained by Staff D. The temperatures of peas were 112 degrees, cauliflower 119 degrees, garlic parmesan potatoes 145, casserole 172 and Swiss steak 140 degrees. On 4/23/25 at 12:07 PM Staff D acknowledged that she did not usually serve lunch. Staff D stated she felt the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, facility record review, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the Iowa Department of Inspections & Appeals and Licensing (DIAL) within 2 hours of an allegation of abuse for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 83 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #1 documented diagnoses of dementia, anxiety disorder and non-traumatic brain dysfunction. The MDS identified the presence of short and long-term memory impairment. The Progress Note dated 4/27/2024 at 6:20 PM composed by Staff A documented the following: CNA approached this writer and stated she heard another CNA admit to doing something to a resident on the previous day, April 26th, while giving him a shower. CNA stated the other CNA said that while she was giving him a shower he became very aggressive and started swinging at her. CNA stated she put the showerhead…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-05-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, infection control policy, clinical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to use universal infection control measures and Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during a drainage of a Foley bag, wound care, and during a peg tube feeding for 3 out of 6 residents reviewed for infection control (Resident #4, #30 and #83). The facility reported a census of 81 residents. Findings Included: 1. Observation on 5/1/24 at 1:14 PM for Resident #4 showed Staff A, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA), sanitized hands, donned gloves, placed the urine colander with the barrier on the floor, then placed an alcohol wipe packet directly on the floor. Staff A opened the Foley bag drainage valve, sanitized the valve with an alcohol wipe, partially drained the urine, reused the same alcohol wipe to sanitize the drainage valve then placed the valve back into the holder. Staff A next manipulated the measuring container within the Foley bag to allow the urine to drain into the bottom of the Foley bag. Staff A then reopened the Foley bag drainage valve, retrieved the alcohol…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ORANGE CITY MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/01/2004 |
| ADAMS, RUSS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2006 |
| ALONS, KATHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| HOFLAND, WADE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/01/2020 |
| IMMEKER, CHRIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| JUNGERS, AMY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| PLUIM, DALE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| ZEUTENHORST, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/22/2003 |
| GOTTO, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/10/2024 |
| GUTHMILLER, MARTIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/24/1994 |
| HANSON, HARRISON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/02/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165538. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-18, 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.