Panora Specialty Care
805 East Main, Panora, IA 50216 · Non profit - Corporation · 46 certified beds · (641) 219-4335 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 8.3% | 17.1% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.9% | 4.6% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.7% | 2.4% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.6% | 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 | 1.5% | 3.8% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.6% | 16.6% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.7% | 20.8% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.5% | 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 | 27.4% | 25.6% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.2% | 19.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.6% | 2.1% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 55.0% | 73.3% | 79.4% | 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 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 10% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. 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 46 beds and averages 40.7 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.90 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.53 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.61 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 2.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.01 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-05 · 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, policy review, and Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, the facility failed to ensure proper Minimum Data Set (MDS) coding for three of fifteen residents reviewed for MDS assessments by not coding resident's diagnoses when indicated, and improperly coded medication and tobacco use (Resident #1, #3, and #4). The facility reported a census of 38 residents. Findings include: 1.The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #4 had diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The MDS failed to indicate the resident had a multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO). The Care Plan initiated 12/18/24 revealed the resident had a risk for potential infection related to a MDRO. The Care Plan directed staff to assess for signs and symptoms of infection, administer antibiotics per the physician orders, and use enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) when performing high-contact care activities. The Treatment Administration Record dated 12/1/25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, electronic health record (EHR) review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to complete an admission smoking evaluation for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for smoking (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 38. Findings include: The EHR census tab for Resident #1 showed the current admission date of 12/5/25. Resident #1 had previously been admitted from 2/5/25 to 3/11/25.The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment completed on 12/8/25 revealed Resident #1 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Diagnoses included a recent pneumonia diagnosis, dyspnea (shortness of breath), anxiety, bipolar disorder, and depression. Resident #1 noted to use a manual wheelchair independently but requiring staff assistance for transfers. The MDS indicated the use of tobacco products.The Care Plan, last updated 12/26/25, documented Resident #1 smokes. Interventions included completing a Smoking Evaluation on admission and as needed. During an observation on 12/31/25 at 8:00 AM, Resident #1 seen smoking 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, electronic record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to follow infection control practices to prevent cross contamination by not completing hand hygiene and glove change during resident cares (Resident #15). The facility reported a census of 38. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment completed on 11/13/25 revealed Resident #15 with Brief Interview for Metal Status score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Diagnoses include multidrug-resistant organism, neurogenic bladder (nerve damage causing poor bladder control), and paraplegia. The MDS indicated the presence of a urinary catheter. The Care Plan, last updated 11/26/25, included a focus area related to the risk of infection due to the presence of a drug-resistant microorganism. Interventions included the use of enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) when performing high-contact care activities. EBP included the use of gowns and gloves. During an observation on 12/29/25 at 4:00 PM, Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Staff B, CNA, completed catheter and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-14 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to review and revise the Care Plan for 3 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #1, Resident #3, Resident #4). The facility failed to revise the Care Plan to include recommendations from the PASRR Level II (Resident #1, Resident #3, Resident #4). The facility reported a census of 35 residents. Findings include: 1. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Resident #1 had an unscorable Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severe cognitive impairment. The document revealed diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), drug induced akathasia, and insomnia. The document disclosed the resident took antianxiety and antidepressant medications. The facility provided document, Preadmission Screening and Resident Resident Review (PASRR) Level II Outcome dated 3/9/25 identified Resident #1 had a time limited approval beginning 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-14 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 reviews, staff interviews, and policy review the facility failed to identify and document target behaviors and/or side effects of medications prescribed to promote or maintain a resident's highest practical mental and psychosocial well-being for 4 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4). The facility failed to identify the target behaviors and/or the side effects of medications on either the Electronic Medical Administration Record (EMAR) or the Care Plan. The facility reported a census of 35 residents. 1. According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] Resident #1 had an unscorable Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment indicating severe cognitive impairment. The document revealed diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), drug induced akathasia, and insomnia. The document disclosed the resident took antianxiety and antidepressant medications. Resident #1's…
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 · E2025-01-15 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide 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
Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, staff schedules, and facility assessment review, the facility staff failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff present during scheduled shifts and to ensure call lights were consistently answered within a reasonable amount of time, within 15 minutes, for 5 of 5 nursing halls. The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: 1. During a continuous observation on 1/14/25 starting at 8:50 AM and ending at 9:40 AM on the 100 and 300 nursing halls, a total of 6 call lights were observed. Breakfast was served in the dining room during this time. Call lights were primarily addressed by one Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Two CNA were helping residents during the meal. One was a CNA from the 400 hallway and the other was the Restorative Aide. By the end of the observation period, 1 call light remained unanswered which had been on since 9:20 AM. During confidential resident interviews starting on 1/12/25 at 11:00 AM, 6 of 11 interviewable residents reported prolonged responses to call lights and receiving the requested…
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 before2025-01-15 · 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 record review, observations, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to provide peri-care in a manner to prevent cross-contamination and infection for one of three residents observed for peri-care. The facility also failed to ensure staff changed gloves and sanitized hands in accordance with proper infection control techniques when contaminated to protect against cross contamination and potential infection for four of twelve residents observed in the sample. The staff failed to utilize a barrier when emptied one of two catheters observed for catheter care, and failed to remove personal protective equipment prior to exit from an enhanced barrier precautions room for one of five halls observed. The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #2 had diagnoses of a pressure ulcer and osteomyelitis (a bone infection and inflammation) to the sacrum and coccyx, neurogenic bladder, and multidrug resistant…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to ensure staff transferred a resident safely and utilized a gait belt for one of three residents reviewed for transfers (Resident #39). The facility reported a census of 40 residents. Findings include: The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #39 had diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease, diabetes, and dementia. The MDS revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 10 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The resident required partial to moderate assistance for transfers, The Care Plan initiated 12/26/24 revealed the resident had poor safety awareness related to cognition and had a risk for falls. The resident required assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's). The Care Plan directed staff to provide assistance of one for bed mobility and transfers. The Progress Notes revealed the following: a. On 1/8/25 at 4:00 AM revealed the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-11 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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, clinical record review, resident interviews, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to keep all areas clean in the facility and in good repair. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: Observations during the dates of 4/9/24 and 4/10/24 revealed the following: 1. On 4/9/24 at 9:00 AM, the bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] observed to have fecal matter on the rim of the toilet bowl and inside the toilet bowl. What appeared to be fecal matter observed on the wall in the bathroom and on the floor, next to the floor trim. Observed rust around the toilet rim on the floor. The toilet had a bar attached under the toilet seat with handles. The bar covered in rust, leaving rust stains on the rim of the toilet under the bar. 2. On 4/9/24 at 9:27 AM, a section of the lower wall by the shower room in the 100 hallway had wallpaper peeling and the plaster coming off by the floor board. The section of wall loose, and when touched would move several inches inward. 3.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-11 · 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, policy review, and staff interview, staff failed to prepare and serve food under sanitary conditions, in order to reduce the risk of contamination and foodborne illness. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: 1. On 4/10/24 at 11:40 AM, during continuous observation of the lunch service, Staff A, [NAME] placed the serving utensils of scoops and tongs, for service of the food, on the counter attached to the front of the steam table. Staff A repeatedly leaned over to scoop food touching the front of her apron to the serving utensils and continued to use the same utensils to serve the food. Staff A applied gloves, opened the refrigerator with the gloved hand, with the same gloved hands touched a slice of cheese, placed the cheese on a plate, and proceeded to open a package of buns, remove a bun, placed bun on a plate and then placed slice of cheese on the bun. 2. On 4/10/24 with meal starting at 11:40 AM, Staff B, Kitchen Aide, scooped a piece of cake onto a plate sitting on the counter, leaned across to scoop another piece of cake…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to perform appropriate infection prevention and control practices during medication administration, including hand hygiene. The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: During an observation for medication administration 4/10/24 at 11:01 AM, Staff C, RN, applied gloves, placed a wax barrier down on a resident's bedside table, placed alcohol wipes and then a blood glucose meter with a test strip and needle on the wax barrier in preparation to obtain a blood sugar reading for a resident. Staff C realized she forgot a cotton ball and returned to the medication cart to obtain a cotton ball, then using the same gloves inserted the needle to obtain blood, massaged the resident's finger to bring blood to the surface, and then inserted the test strip into the glucose meter and obtained blood on the test strip. The meter read an error. Staff C then took off her gloves and placed them on table, the gloves were not placed on the wax barrier, they were placed directly on the resident's bedside…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-06 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to revise and update the Care Plan to include adequate interventions for a resident that was at high risk for elopement for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #6). The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #6 documented diagnoses of schizophrenia, psychotic disorder, hypertension, and thyroid disorder. The MDS showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Progress Notes for Resident #6 showed documentation of exit seeking for the following dates: • 6/7/23 Resident exit seeked times two this shift. • 6/8/23 Resident attempted numerous times to exit several exits. • 6/17/23 Resident had been exit seeking off and on this evening and pacing in the hallways frequently this shift. • 6/22/23 Resident attempted to exit the building this morning by himself. • 6/23/23…
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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARE INITIATIVES — 43 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.7 | -1.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 42 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 42; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARE INITIATIVES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/01/2009 |
| COMPUTERSHARE CORPORATE TRUST COMPANY, NA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2025 |
| BEAL, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2020 |
| BOWEN, LANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| CAROTHERS, MARY JANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| CHILDS, KEVIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| CORLESS, PETER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| KREIN, KEITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/29/2022 |
| RUST, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| STURM, DENISE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| UPMEYER, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/29/2022 |
| DIXON, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2016 |
| DRAKE, EMILY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/04/2023 |
| GILYARD, TANYA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/23/2025 |
| KUHN, JERAMY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/25/2008 |
| MCDYER, JESSICA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/22/2023 |
| BOEVE, DESTINY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| JASEK, JACQUELYNE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/10/2025 |
| STREHLE, JOSHUA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 19 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.
About 84% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $322K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IA
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Iowa Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 165253. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-05, 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.