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

Northern Mahaska Specialty Care

2401 Crestview Drive, Oskaloosa, IA 52577 · Non profit - Corporation · 79 certified beds · (641) 673-3000 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Feb 20251 immediate-jeopardy citation$39,033 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
  • the CMS record shows $39,033 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-06)
  • its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection 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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 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
410 N 12th St · (641) 672-3274 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
205 N E St · (641) 673-3439 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Fareway0.7 mi
311 3rd Ave W · (641) 673-7288 · Call to confirm hours
Park
498 N 2nd St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 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 held steady at 2 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 rating2★
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 increased20.9%17.1%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight6.2%4.6%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.4%1.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.4%2.4%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.4%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 injury3.5%3.8%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened22.2%16.6%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication16.9%20.8%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.7%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.1%4.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control23.8%25.6%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table16.6%19.5%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%2.1%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine91.4%73.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission22.6%20.9%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit10.6%13.2%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.631.491.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.412.081.80worse

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.

39.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 39 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

39.4%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
38.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.17U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.06hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
<0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 38.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 34 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 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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 SNF39.4%CMS range 29.7–51.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.8%CMS range 7.1–15.510.7%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 discharge38.2%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 discharge41.2%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 discharge35.3%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 identified90.2%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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 worsened0.0%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 hospitalization8.4%CMS range 5.1–16.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.261.02Oct 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

0.56
RN hours/ resident / day
0.57
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.07
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.20
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.29
RN hoursweekends
31.3%
Total nursing turnover
20.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 79 beds and averages 75.8 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 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 2.78 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.37 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.66 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% 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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-11-24)
0
at the previous standard inspection (2024-10-24)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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 · Jcited before2024-07-06 · 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 observations, record review, and staff, resident and resident responsible party interviews, the facility failed to ensure the environment remained free of hazards, and failed to ensure employees reported hazards that posed an immediate threat to the safety of all residents when at least 3 employees failed to report an employee had a loaded handgun in her purse that she brought into the facility stored at the Nurse's Station, unsecured, where a cognitively impaired resident gained access to the purse (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 79 residents. The State Agency informed the facility of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 7/3/24 at 1:15 p.m. The IJ began on May 5, 2024. Facility staff removed the Immediate Jeopardy on 7/6/24 by implementing the following actions; a. All Nursing Staff educated between 6/26/24 and 7/6/24 on: 1.) Firearms and weapons are not allowed on the premises, this includes in a vehicle in the parking lot. 2.) If you see or hear of a firearm or weapon being on property.…

    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 · E2025-11-24 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure 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

    Based on observation, diet spreadsheet/menu review, resident diet type report, staff interviews, policy review, and the Simplified Diet Manual the facility failed to serve the appropriate portions for 3 of 3 residents who received pureed diets (Resident #19, #33 and #49) and 1 of 1 resident served only pureed meat (Resident #29). The facility staff also failed to serve the appropriate portion size of meat for 10 of 11 residents on a mechanical soft diet (Resident #7, #8, #27, #30, #37, #38, #42, #55, #58, #67 and #68). The facility reported a census of 78 residents. Findings include:1. The facility's Cycle Day 4 Diet Spreadsheet identified one (1) serving of a deviled pork chop, 1 serving of squash, and 1 serving of a wheat roll to be served as part of the planned pureed textured diet for the lunch meal served on 9/24/25.The facility's Cycle Day 4 Diet Spreadsheet identified a 3 ounce (oz.) of deviled pork chop to be served as part of the planned mechanical soft textured diet for the lunch meal served on 9/24/25.The facility's Diet Type Report revealed three (3) residents on 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-11-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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 record review, observation, staff interview, policy review, and guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the facility failed to implement infection control practices consistent with CDC guidelines pertaining to COVID precautions and Enhanced Barrier Precautions to prevent cross contamination by staff failing to wear proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during routine cares for 2 out of 4 halls (Residents #16, #23, #29 and #44). The facility also failed to perform hand hygiene after catheter care for 1 of 2 residents with catheters (Resident #44). The facility reported a census of 78 residents.Findings include:1. The Care Plan initiated 09/8/25 for Resident #16 indicated she was in isolation for COVID-19 infection. The Care Plan lacked information on the type of isolation. The Care Plan also indicated to follow CDC guidelines and recommendations. The Care Plan initiated 07/30/25 for Resident #29 indicated he was in isolation for COVID-19 infection that resolved on…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-11-24 · 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 record review, observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan to include pain for one of three residents reviewed (Resident #44). The facility reported a census of 78 residents. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #44 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The MDS revealed the resident had diagnoses of spinal stenosis, neuropathy and diabetes. The MDS recorded the resident took pain medication but had no pain in the past 5 days during the look-back period. The Care Area Assessment (CAA's) revealed pain not triggered. The MDS assessment was completed on 8/28/25. The Care Plan initiated 8/20/25 lacked information regarding the resident's pain and staff directives for pain management interventions. The admission Evaluation dated 8/20/25 revealed under Section F /Conclusion was marked no to the statement about the resident had new acute and/or chronic pain, used…

    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 · D2025-11-24 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolated
    Ensure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interviews, policy review, American Heart Association (AHA) and Automated External Defibrillator (AED) Manufacture's Guide, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing interventions, including the use of an AED and administering a shock on a conscious, breathing resident, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #64) reviewed for a change of condition and hospitalizations. The facility reported a census of 78 residents. Findings include:Review of Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #64's Brief Interview for Status (BIMS) of 6, indicating severe cognitive impairment with diagnoses of Coronary Artery Disease, Heart Failure, Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Anxiety, Depression, Schizophrenia, and health conditions of shortness of breath or trouble breathing when lying flat. Resident #64's The MDS also documented Resident #64 receives antipsychotic,…

    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 · D2025-02-26 · 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on staff interviews, clinical record review, and review of facility provided documents, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse timely, within the required two hours, of staff becoming aware that allegation existed for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident's rights and dignity. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/14/25, revealed Resident #1 admitted to facility on 1/08/25, and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. Resident #1 diagnoses included Bipolar Disorder, End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), and atrial fibrillation. The Care Plan [NAME], a document Direct Care Staff use to direct resident care needs, dated 2/25/25, revealed Resident #1 required the presence of 2 staff for when performing care related to accusations of abuse and resident behaviors during cares. On 2/26/25 at 12:18 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), confirmed working the day shift with 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-12-21 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    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, family and staff interview the facility failed to maintain comfortable building temperatures between 71 degrees F (Fahrenheit) and 81 degrees F in the resident's rooms for 4 residents reviewed (Residents #5, #6, #7, and #8). The facility identified a census of 71 residents. Findings include: 1. During an observation and interview on a facility tour 12/19/2023 at 1:45 p.m., the Director of Facilities Maintenance checked temperatures in random resident rooms and revealed the following temperatures as identified: a. The room of Resident #6 (401) measured 69.4 degrees F (Fahrenheit) in the room. The resident stated that the room had been cold for the last couple of weeks and was covered in a wool blanket and wearing long sleeve shirt. b. The room of Resident #7 (room [ROOM NUMBER]) measured 68.0 degrees F in the room. The resident stated that it was cold in their room and sat with arms folded across their chest, and wearing a long sleeve hoodie and sweat pants. A family member was…

    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 · E2023-08-30 · 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 staff interview, resident interview, record review and policy review the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing for 4 of 30 residents reviewed (Residents #55, #26, #29, and #59). The facility census is 68. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #55 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 indicating intact cognitive response. The MDS further documented the resident had diagnoses including medically complex conditions, heart disease, diabetes, severe obesity, difficulty in walking, unsteadiness on feet, muscle weakness. The MDS indicated under functional limitation needed extensive assist of two-person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, locomotion off and on the unit. In addition, was coded Resident #55 needed extensive assistance of two-person physical assistance with toilet use and personal hygiene. The Care Plan for Resident #55 revised 1/7/23 revealed focus area Activities of Daily Living (ADL) documented the resident required…

    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 · D2023-08-30 · 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

    Based on clinical record review, policy review, and interviews the facility failed to treat residents with dignity and respect for 2 of 23 residents reviewed, (Resident #29 and #59). The facility reported a census of 68. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #29 dated 6/8/23 revealed the resident scored 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) exam, which indicated intact cognition. Diagnoses included depression, non-Alzheimers dementia, and orthostatic hypotension (sudden drop in blood pressure with position change). The resident required extensive assist of two for bed mobility and toileting and extensive assist of one for dressing and personal hygiene. A Care Plan focus area initiated on 5/26/23 documented the need for hospice services. A focus area revised 7/17/23 documented chronic pain. A goal revised 6/16/23 indicated the resident did not want to experience an increase in depression. On 8/27/23 at 2:01 PM Resident #29 stated some aides have a nonchalant attitude. She stated she spilled lemonade at a meal and no one moved to help her clean 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-30 · 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

    Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the safety of a resident by not accommodating a resident's need for a mechanical lift sling to ensure safe transfers while at dialysis for 1 of 3 residents reviewed receiving dialysis services (Resident #32). The facility reported a census of 68 residents. Findings: The 6/22/23 Minimum Data Set( MDS) assessment tool listed diagnoses for Resident #32 which included heart failure, kidney failure, and diabetes. The MDS stated the resident required extensive assistance of 2 staff for transfers and listed the resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status(BIMS) score as 13 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. The 7/25/23 MDS stated the resident required extensive assistance for transfers. The facility policy Accommodation of Needs, revised March of 2021, stated the facility would evaluate the resident's individual needs and preferences, including the need for adaptive devices and modifications to the physical environment. Dialysis Treatment Details Reports revealed the following: A 5/26/23…

    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

“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

$39,033 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $39,033 — penalty dated 2024-07-06

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 CARE INITIATIVES — 43 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 52.9-0.9 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.5-0.5 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 53.7+0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.7-0.7 vs chain
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
1 of 5Avoca Specialty CareAvoca, IA 1 of 5Correctionville Specialty CareCorrectionville, IA 1 of 5Crestview Specialty CareWest Branch, IA 1 of 5Heritage Specialty CareCedar Rapids, IA 1 of 5Kingsley Specialty CareKingsley, IA 1 of 5Parkridge Specialty CarePleasant Hill, IA 1 of 5Ravenwood Specialty CareWaterloo, IA 1 of 5Westwood Specialty CareSioux City, IA 2 of 5Chariton Specialty CareChariton, IA 2 of 5Creston Specialty CareCreston, IA 2 of 5Dubuque Specialty CareDubuque, IA 2 of 5Lantern Park Specialty CareCoralville, IA 2 of 5New London Specialty CareNew London, IA 2 of 5Northcrest Specialty CareWaterloo, IA 2 of 5Pinnacle Specialty CareCedar Falls, IA 2 of 5Southridge Specialty CareMarshalltown, IA 2 of 5Stratford Specialty CareStratford, IA 3 of 5Atlantic Specialty CareAtlantic, IA 3 of 5Centerville Specialty CareCenterville, IA 3 of 5Cherokee Specialty CareCherokee, IA 3 of 5Eldora Specialty CareEldora, IA 3 of 5Manly Specialty CareManly, IA 3 of 5Montezuma Specialty CareMontezuma, IA 3 of 5Odebolt Specialty CareOdebolt, IA 3 of 5Panora Specialty CarePanora, IA 3 of 5Ridgewood Specialty CareOttumwa, IA 3 of 5Southern Hills Specialty CareOsceola, IA 3 of 5West Ridge Specialty CareKnoxville, IA 4 of 5Bedford Specialty CareBedford, IA 4 of 5Belle Plaine Specialty CareBelle Plaine, IA 4 of 5Corning Specialty CareCorning, IA 4 of 5Corydon Specialty CareCorydon, IA 4 of 5Dunlap Specialty CareDunlap, IA 4 of 5Laporte City Specialty CareLa Porte City, IA 4 of 5Lyon Specialty CareRock Rapids, IA 4 of 5Oakwood Specialty CareAlbia, IA 5 of 5Fonda Specialty CareFonda, IA 5 of 5Lamoni Specialty CareLamoni, IA 5 of 5Mechanicsville Specialty CareMechanicsville, IA 5 of 5Sibley Specialty CareSibley, IA

Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
CARE INITIATIVESOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 03/01/2014
COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST COMPANY, NAOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2025
BEAL, MICHAELIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/01/2020
BOWEN, LANEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2021
CAROTHERS, MARY JANEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
CHILDS, KEVINIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 04/01/2023
CORLESS, PETERIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2025
KREIN, KEITHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 06/29/2022
RUST, ELIZABETHIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
STURM, DENISEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2021
UPMEYER, LINDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2023
DIXON, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/01/2016
DRAKE, EMILYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/04/2023
GILYARD, TANYAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 05/23/2025
KUHN, JERAMYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/25/2008
MCDYER, JESSICAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/22/2023
VOLM, JOHANNAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2021
LEWIS, KAITLYNIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/02/2023
MAHLER, CARLAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2024
WEI, SHIPENGIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$7.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+0.5%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$629K
Related-party expense9% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 57%Medicare 5%Other / private 38%

This home reported $629K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$281per resident / day
operating cost
$8,528per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$282per 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 165274. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-24, 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